Leave granted.
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.
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
ASHWANI KUMARDate: Andhra2019.12.13 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.
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.
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 that
the ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection
in a direct recruitment would remain in force for a
period of one year from the date of publication of the
selection list, or till the publication of the new
selection list, whichever was earlier. It further
provided that it would be open for the Commission to
select the candidates from the ranking list in place of
those who relinquished the selection or who did not join
duty within the time given. Thus, the ranking list would
in effect function as a waiting list for one year
(maximum). After the amendment of Rule 6, such waiting
period has been given a go by. 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. It further specifies that the
fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-
joining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified in
the next recruitment, clearly indicating that the process
of issuance of waiting list has been discontinued.
Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules further makes it clear that
in case a candidate relinquishes his claim for
appointment in writing, the Commission shall remove the
name of such candidate from the selection list and select
any other candidate according to the Rules. Thus, it is
clarified in Rule 7 that selection must be as per the
existing Rules.
In the matter on hand, Respondent No. 1, as mentioned
supra, approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for
appointment four years after the date of relinquishment
of the post by Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar. Firstly, he
has to be non-suited due to delay and laches. Secondly,
even on merits, we do not find any ground to show
leniency in favour of Respondent No.1 inasmuch as the
selection, if made in favour of Respondent No. 1, would
go against the Rules.
As discussed above, after the amendment of Rule 6,
the system of a waiting list remaining in force for a
period of one year has been done away with. The Rule also
makes it clear that the fallout vacancies, if any, due to
relinquishment and non-joining etc. of the selected
candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.
Hence, 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. In view of
the same, Respondent No. 1 being a non-selected
candidate, cannot urge the Commission to select him based
on the unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules. He is bound
by the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, inasmuch as
Rule 6 was amended on 22.02.1997.
In view of the specific mandate of the amended Rule 6
of the APPSC Rules, in our considered opinion, the High
Court was not justified in granting relief in favour of
Respondent No. 1 ignoring amended Rule 6. Both the Rules
i.e. Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 have to be read
harmoniously. Rule 7 will sub-serve the intention of the
amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, since it specifically
mentions that selection of a new candidate, after
relinquishment of a post by another candidate, shall be
done in accordance with the rules, which would mean the
rules in force at that time. Furthermore, it has also
been brought to our notice that the Commission deleted
Rule 7 by G.P. Ms. No. 139 on 28.07.2016, having found
that the said rule, to a certain extent, was creating
confusion in the selection process.
Be that as it may, since Respondent No. 1 has no
right to claim selection as per the APPSC Rules, no
relief could have been granted to him. Hence, the appeal
is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court
stands set aside.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (s) Nos. 26647 of 2018
KOTA LINGESWARA RAO & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.141382/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )
Date : 11-12-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
For Appellant(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv.
Ms. M.V. Rama, Adv.
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. J. Sudheer, Adv.
Mr. Sumanth Nookala, AOR
Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR
Mr. T. Vijya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv
Ms. ?Sujatta Bagadhi, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed reportable order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)