THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.289, 715, 781, 811, 975 and 1217 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
Regard being had to the controversy involved in the aforesaid
cases, they were heard together and are being decided by a
common order.
The facts of W.A.No.289 of 2017 are reproduced as under:
The present W.A.No.289 of 2017 is arising out of a common
order dated 12.09.2016 passed in W.P.No.21927 of 2015 and other
connected matters (Tarala Ilaiah and another vs. The
Commissioner and Director of School Education and another).
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Central
Government has launched a scheme called Rashtriya Madhyamika
Shiksha Abhiyan to universalise access to and improvement of
quality of education at secondary stage and the scheme was
implemented from the financial year 2008-2009. In respect of
implementation of scheme, Teachers were to be appointed. Various
posts were created by the State of Andhra Pradesh at school level to
be filled by direct recruitment. As many as 7100 posts were
created at school level for Principal, PGT and TGT. The process of
selection was subjected to scrutiny at various levels in respect of
qualifications and other conditions. However, in the present case,
all together a different controversy is involved. The respondents in
the present writ appeal came up before the learned Single Judge 2 stating that G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013 was not followed and the posts have been filled up contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Government Order.
The undisputed facts also reveal that advertisement was issued on 06.02.2012 inviting applications for the posts of PGT, TGT and Principal and the Government has treated the process as closed by issuing a notification dated 28.04.2015. The respondents/writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge contended that the Government permitted for closure of notification and carry forward of the vacancies, which were left unfilled due to non-joining/resigned, to the next notification and the vacancies, which remained unfilled due to contingencies mentioned in para 11(c) of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013, were not filled up by persons, who are in the queue. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs 18 to 24 has passed the following order:
"18. The plea of the petitioners is that though their names found place in the merit list, the provisional list, after contingencies mentioned in the process of verification, was not redrawn but appointments were made on the basis of the candidates who appeared for verification of certificates at the initial stage only. It is also their case that no final selection list was prepared. The counter-affidavit also does not indicate the preparation of final selection list as per para 11 (c) to (h) of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.04.2013.
19. As stated above, the notification was issued for a total number of 355 posts of Principals, 4,615 posts of PGTs and 2,130 posts of TGTs and thus 7,100 posts were notified. As per the counter-affidavit filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1,811 posts were filled up consisting of 78 Principals, 1,278 PGTs and 456 TGTs before the State was bifurcate. Subsequently in October/November, 2014, 1,032 posts were filled up consisting of 491 PGTs and 541 TGTs. As per the communication of Commissioner and Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Principal Secretary to the Government dated 05.12.2014, in the first phase of recruitment, 71 Principal posts, 1,277 PGTs and 456 TGT posts were filled up by June/July 2013 and November 2013. In the second phase of recruitment, 491 PGT posts and 541 TGT posts were filled up during October, 2014. As per the scheme, each school shall have one Principal, 13 3 PGTs and 6 TGTs. 92 posts of Principals, 351 posts of PGTs and 24 TGTs are vacant as on today. The Government issued memo dated 28.04.2015 for closure of the notification for recruitment of the posts of Principals and carry forward the above vacancies left unfilled due to non-joining/resigned to next notification. The recruitment also shows that a letter was addressed on 28.05.2015 by the Commissioner to the Secretary to Government seeking permission for issuing a notification by amending some conditions, thus, it is not as if there are no vacancies.
20. It is clear from the permission of the Government that the Government permitted for closure of notification and carry forward vacancies which are 'left unfilled due to non-joining/resigned' to next notification, but it does not speak of vacancies remained unfilled due to the contingencies mentioned in para 11(c) of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.04.2013. The respondents did not file any evidence to show that they have strictly complied with the selection procedure and filled up the vacancies after preparation of a final selection list as envisaged under para 11 of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.04.2013.
21. In view of the above, the ratio as laid down by the Supreme Court in Manoj Manu's case (3 supra) is squarely applicable to this case. In the said decision, it was categorically held that there can be two situations of candidates joining the post and subsequently resigning/quitting and some candidates not joining at all. It was held that in respect of former i.e., the candidates joining and resigning, the recruitment process would be completed. But in the case of latter where the candidates did not join at all, it cannot be held that the recruitment process was completed. In view of the said ratio, the ratio in Rajkumar Sharma's case (4 supra) is not applicable. The decision of Division Bench in Raaya Sridevi's case (5 supra) is to the same effect as in the case of Raj Kumar Sharma's case (4 supra).
22. Though it was stated in the counter-affidavit that the final selection list was prepared as per clause 11 (f) and (h) of G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.04.2013, there is no conclusive evidence or information justifying the said plea as is evident from the column (4) of the information furnished in the counter and it reads as follows:
"4. It is humbly submitted that during selection process, the selection committee had prepared provisional list by following clause 11(f) G.O.Ms.No.25, which are mentioned as follows:
a. After the declaration of the results, General merit list was prepared and software was developed by Centre for Good Governance, MHRD, AP, Hyderabad to select the candidates as per the procedure. Out of which, as per clause 11 (f) of G.O.Ms.No.25, candidates were called for certificate verification in 1:1 basis i.e. the number of candidates included shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified for that particular category viz., the post of Principal is one category of State Level, PGT Telugu - one category for each zone (4), likewise for PGT-English, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Botony, Zoology, Civics, Economics and Commerce. Similarly for Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT) one category for each zone in six subjects viz., Telugu English, Hindi, Science, Mathematics and social 4 studies. Thus, the total number of categories under PGT are 40 (10 subjects x 4 zones) and TGTs are 24 (6 subjects x 4 zones).
b. For each category of posts, separate roster points were followed as per the number of posts notified.
Ex: In PGT - Telugu for Zone-1, the roster points are 1 to 70 @ 2 posts per school. Whereas for Zone-4, the roster points are 1 to 178 in two 100 point cycles @ 2 posts per school.
The details of PGTs and TGTs allotted during May/June 2013 and October/November 2014 are furnished below.
Post Graduate Teachers Posts Candidat Candidat Absent Allotted Candidate Candida Candidat Absent Candida Candida notified es called es called ees candidate s called by tes not es called ees tes Total no. of tes for for redrawal availablfor present candidates working certificate certificate as per e certificate for allotted as on verificatio verificatio clause verificatio certifica date n n 11(f) n te verificat ion 1 2 3 (cl.1-2) 4 5 (cl.3-4) 6 (cl.2+4) 7 8 (cl 6-7) 9 10 11 12 2119 132 1987 376 1611 508 168 340 9 331 1768 1436 Thus, against 2119 posts, after following clause 11(f) of G.O.Ms.No.25 the total no. of candidates called for certificate verification are 2327 (i.e., 1987 + 340 (cl.3 + cl8 above)).
Total no. of candidates working as on date = 1436.
No. of vacancies existing as on date = 683 (2119-1436).
Trained Graduate Teachers Posts Candidat Candidat Absent Allotted Candidate Candida Candidat Absent Candida Candida notifie es called es called ees candidate s called by tes not es called ees tes Total no. of tes d for for redrawal availablfor present candidates working certificate certificate as per e certificate for allotted as on verificatio verificatio clause verificatio certifica date n n 11(f) n te verificat ion 1 2 3 (cl.1-2) 4 5 (cl.3-4) 6 (cl.2+4) 7 8 (cl 6-7) 9 10 11 12 978 16 962 506 456 522 24 498 277 221 603 576 Thus, against 978 posts, after following clause 11(f) of G.O.Ms.No.25 the total no. of candidates called for certificate verification are 1460 (i.e., 962 + 498 (cl.3 + 8)).
Total no. of candidates working as on date = 576.
No. of vacancies existing as on date = 402 (978-576)."
There is no information with regard to contingencies specified in para 11 (c) and there cannot be any appointment even before compliance with para No.11(h). Same is the situation in respect of State of Telangana also.
23. In the circumstances, there shall be a direction to the respondents to redraw the provisional list so prepared in terms of 5 para 11(f) G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 04.04.2013 and prepare a final selection list and consider the case of the petitioners for appointment, if they come up in the final selection list.
24. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above."
It is an undisputed fact that the present appellants did not follow G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013 nor they did file any evidence before the learned Single Judge that they have followed G.O.Ms.No.25 while filling up the vacancies. There were a large number of vacancies available and the learned Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that in case the candidates from the list have joined and resigned, the process of recruitment can be treated as completed, but in case where the candidates did not join at all, they have waived their offer of appointment, then in that case the process cannot be held to be completed in the light of the judgment delivered in the case of State of U.P. vs. Rajkumar Sharma1 and Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Raaya Sridevi2 and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has directed the State to redraw the provisional list so prepared in terms of para 11(f) of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013. Paragraph 11 of G.O.Ms.No.25 is reproduced as under:
"11. Verification of certificates:
a) The Additional Director, Model Schools shall prepare with the approval o the Selection Committee a provisional list to the extent of vacancies notified, for each category of post notified, on the basis of the merit list and publish the same on the notice boards of the offices of the District Collector and District Educational Officer and also on the designated website, along with the date, time and venue fixed for verification of certificates. The Additional Director, Model Schools shall also issue a press note in the news papers for wide publicity in this regard.1
(2006) 3 SCC 330 2 2013 (3) ALT 148 (DB) 6
b) The Committees as constituted in the Annexure-I and Annexure-II to these guidelines shall conduct the verification of original certificates of the candidates for the posts of Principal and the posts of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT), respectively, as per the schedule and at the venues specified by the Selection Committee.
c) As the processing of applications is made online so far, the process of verification of certificates of candidates included in provisional list may, in certain cases, also result in, i. Failure of the candidate to attend for verification of certificates.
ii. Failure of the candidate to produce the original certificate/s relevant to his/her eligibility and selection.
iii. Inclusion of a candidate in the provisional list of more than one category.
d) As regards c(i) above, the Additional Director, Model Schools shall send a personal intimation to the address furnished by the candidate, to attend along with all relevant original certificates on the date fixed for the said purpose, as a final chance.
e) In case the candidate fails to attend even on the date so fixed, he/she shall forfeit his/her right to be considered for selection.
f) In the event of c(ii) & c(iii) and (d) above, the provisional list shall be redrawn by the Selection Committee drawing next candidate/s from the merit list to the extent necessary, however, subject to the condition that the number of candidates included shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified for that particular category. In so far as the candidate covered by c(iii) above, this exercise shall be done only after obtaining the option of such candidate at the time of verification of certificates itself.
g) The further verification of certificates, if any required as under (f) above shall be done, after due intimation to the candidates concerned, on the date fixed for the said purpose.
h) After due completion of the above exercise the Selection Committee shall prepare the final selection list of the candidates for all categories. Once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and posts if any unfilled for any reason whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment."
Undisputedly, the appellants/State has not at all followed G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013 and in those circumstances, a 7 direction was issued to draw a fresh list by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also held that the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition by the State Government does not indicate that the preparation of final selection list was as per paras 11(c) and (h) of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 04.04.2013.
Resultantly, as the learned Single Judge simply directed the State to follow their own government order in the matter of preparation of selection list and for issuing consequential orders, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The admission is declined.
Accordingly, the writ appeals are dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 17.11.2021 ES