Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
State.Of Ap,Prl.Scy,S.E,Hyd, 3 vs Vallampati Sathish Babu,Anot on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi, K Suresh Reddy
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
Writ Petition No. 12144 OF 2015
(Taken up through video conferencing)
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
The Writ Petitioners assailed the order, dated 06.08.2014
passed in O.A.No.4916 of 2013 by the Andhra Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad (for short ' the Tribunal')
allowing the prayer of the 1st respondent herein and directing the
writ petitioners to consider his case for appointment to the post
of Secondary Grade Teacher (for short, 'S.G.Teacher') in
DSC-2012 in the unfilled vacancy of one Gullipalli Anantha Rao.
2. Gist of the case is to the effect that the 1st respondent
had appeared for recruitment of Teachers in pursuance of DSC-
2012 in Vizianagaram District and was placed at 34th rank in the
merit list. In the course of selection process, the 1st respondent
was not selected and his name did not appear in the final
selection list. However, one Gullipalli Anantha Rao, who was
positioned at 18th rank in the selection list, did not attend at the
time of counseling for issuance of appointment order. It further
came to light that the said Gullipalli Anantha Rao was already
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
working as S.G.Teacher in Tuni Municipality. Under such
circumstances, 1st respondent made an application to consider his
case for appointment as S.G.Teacher in the aforesaid vacancy.
The Tribunal relying on a decision of this Court in the District
Educational Officer & Member Convener, District Selection
Committee, Nizamabad & Others V. B.Annapurna1, allowed the
prayer of the 1st respondent.
3. Mr.K.Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for
Services-I appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Tribunal
had erred in relying on the aforesaid decision, which did not
relate to appointment of S.G.Teachers under the Andhra Pradesh
Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection)
Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). The issue is
no longer res integra in view of the issue decided by composite
High Court at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh V.
Samiulla Shareef & others2.
4. On the other hand, Mr.G.Gopala Krishna, learned
counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, argues that his client
was entitled to be considered for appointment in the vacancy of
the said Gullipalli Anantha Rao, who had failed to attend the
counseling for appointment as he was already employed in
W.P.No.21306 of 2005, delivered on 04.09.2006
2014 (1) ALT 165.
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
another school. Therefore, selection list was not final and the
ratio in Samiulla Shareef (1st Supra) is clearly distinguishable on
facts.
5. Selection process including preparation of selection
lists, counseling and issuance of appointment and posting orders
to the selected candidates of DSC-2012 was provided in
G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (PE.Ser.II) Department, dated
3.11.2012. Paragraph-8 of the Annexure-I to the said Government
Order reads as follows:
"8.Verification of Certificates :
a) The District Educational Officer shall prepare
with the approval of the District Selection Committee
a provisional list to the extent of vacancies notified,
for each category of post notified in DSC-2012 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
District Educational Officer shall also issue a press
note in the local news papers for wide publicity in this
regard.
b) As the processing of application for DSC-2012 is
made online so far, the process of verification of
certificates of candidates included in provisional
list may, in certain cases, also result in,
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
i) Failure of the candidate to attend for
verification of certificates.
ii) Failure of the candidate to produce
the original certificates/s relevant to
his / her eligibility and selection.
iii) Inclusion of a candidate in the
provisional list of more than one
category.
c) As regards b(i) above, the District Educational
Officer 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.
d) 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
e) In the event of b(ii) and (b)iii and (d) above, the
provisional list shall be redrawn by the District
Selection Committee drawing the next candidates
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 b
(iii) above, this exercise shall be done only after
obtaining the option of such candidate at the time
of verification of certificates itself.
f) The further verification of certificates, if any
required as under (e ) above shall be done, after
due intimation to the candidates concerned, on the
date fixed for the said purpose.
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
g) After due completion of the above exercise the
District Selection Committee shall prepare the
final selection list of the candidates for all
categories of the teachers. Once the final selection
list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and
posts if any unfiled for any reason whatsoever
shall be carried forward for future recruitment as
per Sub rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Rules".
6. From a plain reading of Para-8 (g) supra, it is clear
that once a 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 under Sub rule (5)
of Rule 16 of the Rules.
7. In the present case, name of the 1st respondent did
not feature in the final selection list. One Gullipalli Anantharao
has secured 18th rank, however, at the time of counselling for
issuance of appointment order, he failed to appear and the said
post fell vacant. It is contended by the learned counsel for the 1st
respondent that his client should be considered in such vacancy.
On the other hand, learned Government pleader for Services
would contend the vacancy would be carried forward for
recruitment in future years, in view of Para-8 (g) supra.
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
8. We have considered the materials on record. Para-8
(g) supra inter alia provides for revision of a provisional selection
list, in the event, selected candidates failed to appear for
verification / production of original certificates. It appears that
the said Gullipalli Ananthrao had appeared for verification of
certificates, but failed to appear at the time of issuance of
appointment order. As per Para-8 (g) of the said Guidelines, any
vacancy created after the final selection list is to be carried over
for recruitment in the subsequent year and there shall be no
waiting list. Interpreting the same selection procedure, a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court at Para-13 in W.P.No.4864 of 2011,
distinguished the decision in W.P.No.21306 of 2005, which is as
follows :
"13. The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2
/applicants also brought to our notice, the Judgment
dated 4.9.2006, of a Division Bench of this Court in
W.P.No.21306 of 2005. It is a case relating to
appointment of Telugu Pandits, wherein, the selection of
a candidate who was selected as a local candidate, was
cancelled subsequently when it was established in the
inquiry that she was a non-local. In such circumstance,
the directions issued by the Tribunal to consider the
candidature of the next meritorious candidate, were
approved by a Division Bench of this Court. However, it
is to be noticed that the merit list, selected list and the
list of appointees are different concepts altogether. The
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
merit list is only the list of candidates prepared as per
the merit, selected list is the list of candidates who came
up for selection, and ultimately, based on such selected
list, final list of candidates who are entitled for
appointment, will be issued. In the absence of any
waiting list, only basing on the merit list, no direction can
be granted as prayed by respondents 1 and 2 herein, for
their appointment".
The Bench further held therein as follows :
"In any event, in view of Rule 13 of the Andhra Pradesh
Direct Recruitment of Teachers (Scheme of Selection)
Rules, 2000 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court relied on by the learned Government Pleader, it is
implicit that unless there is a waiting list, no candidate
can claim for appointment, as a matter of right, only on
the ground that the appointment of a candidate is
subsequently set aside for one reason or the other. In
that view of the matter, we hold that respondents 1 and
2 / applicants are not entitled to seek for any direction to
consider their candidature for appointment in the
vacancies which arose on account of termination of the
services of 16 candidates".
9. The aforesaid ratio applies with all force to the facts
of the present case, which relates to the similar selection process
for recruitment of Secondary Grade Teachers. Hence, we are
inclined to follow the said ratio, which has drawn inspiration from
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of Bihar State
Electricity Board V. Suresh Prasad & Others3 and Pradip Gogoi
& Others V. State of Assam & Others4. The aforesaid authorities
unequivocally pronounce that in the event the candidates selected for
appointment have not joined, in the absence of any Statutory rule to the
contrary, the employer is not bound to offer the unfilled vacancies to the
candidates next below the said candidates in the merit list.
10. The rule position in the present case is, in fact, more
vocal. As discussed above, Para-8 (g) of the Guidelines
unequivocally states after preparation of final selection list, no
waiting list shall be prepared and unfilled vacancies shall be
carried over to future recruitment. The Tribunal had relied on a
Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.21306 of 2005 relating to
appointment of Telugu Pandits. In the said case, this Court was
not called upon to interpret the Rule position with regard to
recruitment of candidates as Secondary Grade Teachers,
particularly Paragraph-8 (g), as aforesaid. Thus, the said case
was rightly distinguished in Samiulla Shareef (1st Supra) in view of
the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Bihar State Electricity
Board (3rd Supra) and Pradip Gogoi (4th Supra).
(2004) 2 SCC 681
(1998) 8 SCC 726
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
11. In the light of the aforesaid facts, we are of the
opinion that the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and is
liable to be set aside.
12. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and the order,
dated 6.8.2014 passed in O.A.No.4916 of 2013 by the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, at Hyderabad is hereby set
aside. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
dismissed in consequence.
_____________________
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
___________________
K.SURESH REDDY, J.
Date: 20-07-2021,
RPD
JB,J & KSR,J
W.P.No.12144 of 2015
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
Writ Petition No. 12144 OF 2015
(Order of the Division Bench delivered by
Hon'ble Sri Justice Joymalya Bagchi)
DATE: 20th JULY, 2021
RPD
