SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(SC) 427

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Kota Lingeswara Rao & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No(S). 9338 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 26647 of 2018)
Decided on : 11-12-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. R. Basant, Ms. M.V. Rama, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Sudheer, Mr. Sumanth Nookala, Mr. G. N. Reddy, Mr. T. Vijya Bhaskar Reddy, Ms. Sujatta Bagadhi, Adv.

The amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules specifies that the list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies, and the court interpreted that the Commission does not have the power to invite the next selected candidate if the last selected candidate does not opt to join the post.

Headnote:

Interpretation - Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure - Rule 6, Rule 7

Fact of the Case:

A candidate approached the court for appointment to a vacancy created due to non-joining of the last selected candidate. The High Court granted relief in favor of the candidate, directing the Commission to appoint the candidate to the said post.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules specifies that the list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies. The court held that the Commission does not have the power to invite the next selected candidate if the last selected candidate does not opt to join the post, and must publish the vacant post in the next recruitment only.

Issues: Interpretation of Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the candidate has no right to claim selection as per the unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules and that the relief granted by the High Court was not justified in ignoring the amended Rule 6.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The interpretation of Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 of Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (“the APPSC Rules”) is in question in this appeal.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that a written test and oral test were conducted for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics, and results were published by the appellant herein, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) on 03.12.2011. Respondent No.1, who belongs to the Open Category (“OC”), secured 380.50 marks, whereas one Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar (the last selected candidate in the OC in Zone-III) secured 393.00 marks. Consequently, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar was declared selected. The selection was finalized and the same was sent to the Unit Officers on 04.09.2012. However, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar chose not to join the post. Respondent No. 1 herein, after waiting for four years, filed Original Application No. 3142 of 2016 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal on 02.08.2016, claiming appointment in the vacancy created due to non-joining of Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar, since he was the candidate with the next highest marks in the select merit list. The said Original Application No. 3142 of 2016 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the same, Respondent No. 1 carried the matter before the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 3695 of 2018. The High Court vide the impugned judgment found that the vacancy for the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics had not been filled up since the last OC candidate did not join duty, and allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, directing the Commission to appoint Respondent No.1 to the said post.

4. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Commission and Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for both the parties have taken us through the material on record and the concerned rules.

5. It is relevant to note that Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules was amended on 22.02.1997 and a notification was issued for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics on 26.11.2008. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the unamended and amended Rule 6 as well as Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules:

    “Rule-6 (Prior to amendment)-The ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of which the selection list is published on the Notice Board of the Commissioner or till the publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier. The Commission may select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within the time given and also new requisitions (sent by appointing authorities). However, the Commission shall have the right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded.

    Rule 6: (After amendment) -The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/categories notified by the Unit Officers Government. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.

    Rule 7: Any candidate whose name has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on enquiry by the Commission, may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing in the Proforma prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall there Upon remove the name of such candidate from the selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the selection list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission and shall have no right for the said appointment in future with reference to the said selection.”

    The unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules stated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top