Back
2011 Supreme(AP) 796
2011 (6) ALT 240
High Court of Andhra Pradesh
V.V.S.RAO & K.G.SHANKAR
Parige P.Sudhir & Others
Versus
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Hyderabad Represented by its Secretary & Others
WRIT PETITION NOS.26119 of 2011, 26163, 26307, 26329 AND 26330 of 2011
Decided on : 23-09-2011
For the Petitioner:J.R.Manohar Rao, P.Ratnam, J.Sudheer, N.Ashwani Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: G.P. for Services-I and G.P. for Services-II.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14 and 16 – Education matter – Cut off Marks – Examination – Selection process - Petitioners in the first group of cases prayed the Tribunal to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and APPSC to fill up 333 vacancies by direct recruitment in various categories and for further direction to consider the petitioners for appointment to various posts – Two petitioners along with filed O.A. seeking a similar relief – They relied on two Government Orders General Administration (SCR.A) Department, and G.O.Ms. in support of their contention that the Government is under a legal duty to calculate the vacancy position meant for direct recruitees in accordance with the two Government Orders and finalise selection process only after such exercise is completed – Their contention was that if the selection for Group-I Services Recruitment, 2008, is considered for 333 vacancies instead of 210 vacancies, which were already notified, there would be more probability of the petitioners coming up for selection along with other eligible candidates – They also contended that when the Government was prompt in filling up the vacancies earmarked for promotees, the Government should fill up the vacancies by the method of direct recruitment as well – They contended that their right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for being considered and for equality of opportunity for public employment would be defeated if the respondents do not take into consideration the vacancies, which were allegedly existing when the APPSC issued notification – Held, if large number of candidates secured the cut-off mark, throwing them out of race at the very beginning would be denial of equality of opportunity – Government Order and the notification have to be interpreted to be compliant with equality clause – If the plea of APPSC is accepted, it would violate equality clause – Court must always interpreting the law or construe the Government policy in such a manner that it would always be compliant with the constitutional principles and not in a manner that subvert the equality principle – Fact that APPSC applies such a principle at the time of final selection can be no ground to sustain the classification at the stage of screening test, which is only intended to short-list the candidates – Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has committed an error in accepting the contention of APPSC in this regard. – Writ Petitions Dismissed
V.V.S.Rao,J.
W.P.Nos.26119, 26329 and 26330 of 2011 form one group. They are filed against the common order dated 14.09.2011 in O.A.Nos.2865 and 7253 of 2011 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereafter, the Tribunal). The other group of two Writ Petitions being W.P.Nos.26163 and 26307 of 2011 are filed against the common order dated 14.09.2011 in O.A.Nos.9422 of 2010 and 1520 of 2011, where a different point falls for consideration. It is however expedient to dispose of these matters by a common order.
2.Background
The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereafter, the APPSC) issued notification No.39 of 2008 on 31.12.2008 inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Group-I Services (General Recruitment). As many as 129 vacancies in 12 different departments were notified. A supplemental notification No.10 of 2009 was issued on 15.07.2009 inviting applications from 28.07.2009 to 01.09.2009 for recruitment of 198 posts including those which were notified. Further, 12 fall out vacancies of previous recruitment were also added to Group-I Services Recruitment, 2008.
3. The salient features of the notification are (i) a Bachelors degree/a degree or a degree in a special subject wherever required; (ii) minimum and maximum age as on 01.07.2008 being 18 to 39 or 18 to 30 depending upon the posts; (iii) the applicants shall be subjected to screening test (Objective Type) for the purpose of admitting them to main (written) examination; (iv) only the qualified applicants are to be admitted to main (written) examination consisting of six compulsory papers; and (v) the number of candidates to be admitted to the written examination would be fifty (50) times to the vacancies available at material time irrespective of the communities.
4. The petitioners in these cases also appeared in the preliminary examination/screening test conducted on 05.09.2010 and 25.09.2010. The results thereof were announced on 30.11.2010. In the Screening Test, 10,500 candidates were declared qualified for main examination. In view of the fact that 210 vacancies were notified, APPSC declared 10,500 candidates as qualified, which is fifty times the number of vacancies arriving at the cut-off mark of 83 out of 150. Though as many as 1,047 candidates secured 83 marks in the screening test, so as to restrict the qualified candidates to 10,500, the APPSC declared only 43 candidates, who got 83 marks as qualified, purportedly relying on para-17 of Chapter 7 of APPSC Manual. The petitioners in second group, who also got 83 marks, are aggrieved by this and filed two separate Original Applications being O.A.Nos.9422 of 2010 and 1520 of 2011. They contended that at the stage of screening test, for admitting candidates to written examination, there cannot be any further classification among the candidates who secured equal number of cut-off marks. They also contended that the Recruitment Notification or APPSC Manual would not enable the APPSC to resort to such method of excluding the candidates who got same cut-off marks in the Screening Test. Be it also noted that a few of the petitioners in the first group got more than 83 marks and others did not secure the cut-off marks.
5. The petitioners in the first group of cases prayed the Tribunal to direct the Government of Andhra Pradesh and APPSC to fill up 333 vacancies by direct recruitment in various categories and for further direction to consider the petitioners for appointment to various posts. The two petitioners along with another filed O.A.No.7253 of 2011 seeking a similar relief. They relied on two Government Orders being G.O.Ms.No.81, General Administration (SCR.A) Department, dated 22.02.1997 and G.O.Ms.No.424 (GAD) dated 15.06.2007 in support of their contention that the Government is under a legal duty to calculate the vacancy position meant for direct recruitees in accordance with the two Government Orders and finalise selection process only after such exerc
