Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J Srinivasa Rao 2 Ors vs Prl.Secy., Higher Education ... on 1 July, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No:W.P.No. 372 of 2017
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No NOTE.
RNT,J
13. 01.07.2022 1. This petition was filed by 3 petitioners for a
prayer in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the
action of the respondents in not considering the
petitioner's case for appointment on the post of
Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering), pursuant
to the selection process conducted under notification
bearing Advertisement No.2 of 2013, dated 01.06.2013.
2. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner
No.3 has died and consequently the petition is now
confined to petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
3. The petitioner No.1 had applied under BC-B
category and petitioner No.2 under the category BC-D.
4. The petitioners case is that, in the said selection
after its completion i.e., after the stage of interview,
performance merit list was prepared, in which the
petitioner No.1 was at Sl.No.15. He secured 59 marks
in total out of 100 and based on his marks, he stood at
Sl.No.3 in his category of BC-B. There were 3 posts
under this category BC-B and consequently, the
petitioner No.1 should have been given appointment.
5. With respect to petitioner No.2, learned counsel
for the petitioner submitted that he stood at Sl.No.19 in
the merit list and in his category BC-D, he was at
Sl.No.9. There were 6 posts under this category, two
each for 3 centres. His case is that 2 candidates of this
category, out of 6 persons selected under this category
on their own merit should have been given appointment
under Open Category and one person did not report for
joining. Consequently, if the selection had been made
like this, the petitioner No.2 would have got
appointment in BC-D category against 6th post.
6. Sri C.Sudesh Anand, learned Special Counsel for
the respondent Nos.2 to 4 does not dispute the merit
list, which was prepared and annexed as Ex.P5 in the
writ petition. However, he submits that the Selection
committee did not recommend the petitioners for
appointment.
7. He further submits that later on the University
cancelled the entire selection process vide resolution of
the Governing Counsel of the University, pursuant to
Advertisement No.2 on 2013, but the said cancellation
was declared illegal and was set aside by this Court in
W.P.No.5107 and connected petitions of 2015 vide
judgment dated 13.11.2015.
8. Pursuant to the judgment dated 13.11.2015, the
Selection Committee re-examined the select list and
submitted list for appointment of 53 applicants for
Nuzivedu and R.K Valley centres of RGUKT. In
W.P.M.P.No.4126 of 2016 in W.P.No.5107 of 2015 by
order dated 12.11.2016, the respondent/University was
permitted to proceed with the corrected selection list
which issued appointment letters to those 53
applicants. He submits that the petitioners are
therefore not entitled for any relief.
9. Sri K.B.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners were not party
in those writ petitions, to which learned counsel for the
University has not raised any objection. He further
submits that any reason for not giving appointment to
the petitioner No.1 has also not been disclosed whereas
on his own merit, he was entitled for appointment.
10. This Court in the judgment dated 12.11.2016
clearly held that there is no illegality in the selection
process and the same was held strictly in accordance
with the notification issued for the posts. Paragraph
Nos.18 to 21 read as under:-
"18. The facts in the present writ petitions
are entirely different. Absolutely, there is no
allegation about any corrupt practice or
manipulations in the process of selection. Any
such allegations are not found in the Note
sent by the then Deputy Chief Minister of
erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh or in the
reports of the Committees referred above.
19. The Sub Committee did not specify
the irregularities in its report. It made only
certain general remarks regarding the
selection, which according to the petitioners,
are totally erroneous. There is no denial to
the fact that the selection was held strictly in
accordance with the notification issued for the
posts. If the reservations are not correctly
followed, they can be now applied correctly
because the entire material is with the
Selection Committee. On the pretext that
some irregularities took place in the selection
process, the candidates, who were selected
fairly and by virtue of their merit, cannot be
denied the appointment.
20. Having gone through the contentions
urged in the counter affidavit, I am of the
view that the irregularities pointed out are not
material and the selection process is in
accordance with the notification issued for the
said posts. As already said, absolutely there is
no malpractice, manipulation or fraud in the
process of selection. If that is so, the entire
select list cannot be cancelled to the
detriment of the meritorious candidates. This
is not a case wherein it is not possible to
segregate the properly selected candidates
from improperly selected candidates even by
following the rule of reservation. On the
pretext that some mistakes occurred in the
process of selection, the entire selection
process shall not be annulled. As pointed out
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
judgments referred supra, if the selection
process is tainted with corrupt practices,
manipulations and fraud, then only the entire
selection can be cancelled. In the instant
case, absolutely, even according to the
respondents, there are no corrupt practices,
manipulations or fraud played in the process
of selection. Most of the petitioners are
working as contract lecturers in the
respondents/University. If they are selected
fairly in accordance with the norms indicated
in the notification, they cannot be denied
appointment on the grounds viz., rule of
reservation has not been followed, no cut-off
marks were prescribed, some ineligible
candidates were given appointment etc.
The counter affidavit does not mention about
any specific irregularities candidate-wise.
Apparently, it seems that the basis for
cancellation of the select list is nothing but the
Note issued by the then Deputy Chief Minister
of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and
the fax message sent by the State
Government. No specific irregularity has been
pointed out by the Sub Committee appointed
by the Governing Council of the
respondents/University. Since the petitioners
were given appointment orders, they shall be
absorbed in the said posts unless it is shown
that any taint, malpractice or fraud is attached
to their selection or that they were not
properly selected for their respective posts.
21. In view of what all stated herein
above, the resolution of the Governing Council
of the respondents/University cancelling the
entire selection process in pursuance of
Advertisement No.2/2013 is declared as illegal
and it is set aside. Consequently, the
respondents are directed to examine the
select list thoroughly, apply the rule of
reservation and segregate the candidates who
are improperly selected from the properly
selected candidates and appoint the
petitioners according to their merit and by
applying the rule of reservation pursuant to
their respective appointment orders. With the
above directions, all the writ petitions are
disposed of.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No
costs."
11. Once the name of the petitioner No.1 found
place in the merit list prepared after interview, the
reasons as to why the Selection Committee did not
recommend the name of the petitioner No.1 for
appointment should have been disclosed, which is not
forthcoming in the counter affidavit, much less any
justifiable reason, and particularly when a perusal of
the document annexed as Ex.P6 to the petition at Page
No.32 shows that at Sl.No.6 thereof, against the post of
Mechanical Engineering BC-B category, no appointment
has been made.
12. Prima facie, a candidate who got selection on his
own merit and as per the same merit list, the other
candidates are given appointment, there must be some
justification for not giving appointment to the person
standing in the merit list, when the post notified for
recruitment is lying vacant. There cannot be pick and
choose in the matters of appointment out of the merit
list.
13. Under the circumstances, the respondents are
directed to file additional counter affidavit, disclosing
the reasons and the justification for not selecting the
petitioner No.1 for appointment inspite of his merit
position.
14. As requested by the learned Special Counsel, list
on 15.07.2022 to enable him to file additional counter
affidavit on the aforesaid point.
15. All the pleas are open to both the petitioners at
the time of arguments.
________
RNT,J
Scs
