Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
Smt Rehana Sultana – Respondent
W.P. No. 4965 of 2021
Decided on : 11-07-2023
Appointment - Caste Certificate - A.P. Direct Recruitment for the Posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012 - Rule 16(5)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appointment of a candidate under BC-E (General) category, whose caste certificate was cancelled, leading to termination of services. The Tribunal directed consideration of the next meritorious candidate for the vacancy, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the vacancy caused due to the termination of services constituted a fresh vacancy, and the Tribunal erred in directing consideration of the 1st Respondent for the same. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's further directions exceeded its jurisdiction, and the Petitioners had already considered and rejected the 1st Respondent's case.
Issues: Validity of the Tribunal's direction to consider the 1st Respondent for the vacancy and the legality of the further directions issued by the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The vacancy caused due to the termination of services constituted a fresh vacancy, and the Tribunal's directions exceeded its jurisdiction. The Petitioners' consideration and rejection of the 1st Respondent's case were found to be in accordance with the law.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the Tribunal was quashed, and the writ petition was partly allowed. No order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri. K. Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services III, for the Petitioners.
2. There is no representation for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
3. On 04.07.2023, this Court passed the following order:
The Respondents have also not filed the counter affidavit.
Post on 11.07.2023 finally.
If there is no representation for the Respondents on the next date also, the Court ay proceed even exparte.”
4. We proceeded to hear the Petitioners’ Counsel.
5. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, to set aside/quash the judgment and order, dated 28.01.2019, in O.A. No. 613 of 2017, filed by the present 1st Respondent.
6. The present 1st Respondent is the Claimant/Applicant. The Petitioners are the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the present Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 respectively in O.A. No.613 of 2017.
7. The Petitioners issued Notification No. 1863/RC-3/2011, dated 30.01.2012, (DSC-2012) inviting applications for various posts of School Assistants, Secondary Grade Teachers, Physical Education Teachers [PETs] and Language Pandits. For East Godavari, 72 posts of School Assistants (Biological Science) were notified in plain area, out of which, one post was earmarked for BC-E (General) category and BC-E (Women) category.
8. Smt. Shaik Fatimunnisa Begum was selected under BC-E (Women) category and the present Respondent No. 3 Sri. Sk. Dadaji, was selected and appointed under BC-E (General) category.
9. The Applicant/1st Respondent, submitted a representation that the present Respondent No. 3 obtained false community certificate of “Shaik Muslim Community” falling under BC-E category upon which the enquiry was imitated and his caste certificate was cancelled by the District Collector. Consequent thereupon, the appointment order was also cancelled. The 3rd Respondent filed O.A. No.2514 of 2013, which was allowed, setting aside the ‘cancellation of appointment’, on the ground that the cancellation of the caste certificate was not in accordance with law. Again, the order of termination was passed based on the cancellation of the caste certificate. The Respondent No. 3 filed O.A. 7605 of 2013, which was allowed setting aside the order of termination as the proceedings were not in accordance with law. The District Collector, finally cancelled the caste certificate vide proceedings, dated 13.06.2016, and consequential orders were issued by the District Selection Committee on 02.07.2016 terminating the services of the Respondent No. 3.
10. The Applicant/1st Respondent then filed O.A. No.3767 of 2016 seeking a direction to the Respondents to consider her case in the vacancy of BC-E (General) category due to termination of the services of Respondent No.3.
11. The O.A. No. 3767 of 2016 was disposed of by Order, dated 22.09.2016, granting liberty to the Applicant/1st Respondent to make a representation, seeking selection as “School Assistant (Biological Science)” in pursuance of DSC-2012, with a direction to the Respondents therein to consider such representation and pass appropriate orders.
12. The representation of the 1st Respondent was rejected on 27.10.2016. The Claimant/Respondent No. 1, filed O.A. No. 613 of 2017, which was allowed by Order, dated 28.01.2019, impugned in the present writ petition.
13. Learned Government Pleader submits that, one post reserved for BC-E (W) was already filled up with better rank candidate and there was no post left to consider the Applicant/1st Respondent under the category of BC-E(W).
He submits that, under Rule 16(5) of the A.P. Direct Recruitment for the Posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012, [‘Rules 2012’] the number of candidates selected shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified and even if any post remains unfilled, for any reason whatsoever, that is to be carried forward for the future recr
The vacancy caused due to the termination of services constitutes a fresh vacancy, and the Tribunal's directions exceeded its jurisdiction.
Non-selected candidates have no indefeasible right to appointment despite selection irregularities of others.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that administrative instructions cannot override statutory rules, and the rejection of an appointment must be in accordance with the applicable rul....
A candidate in a recruitment process does not acquire an enforceable right to be appointed to a vacancy arising from the non-reporting of a selected candidate unless specifically provided for by stat....
The termination of the teacher was unlawful as it violated principles of natural justice, and the appointment was validly made under due process against a clear vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
