Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.Podilapu Lakshmi vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its ... on 1 May, 2024
APHC010421672015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.30071
No and 32954 of 2015
BETWEEN:
Smt.podilapu Lakshmi ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its ...RESPONDENT(S)
Principal and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G TUHIN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR WOMEN DEV
DEV-CHILD WELFARE(AP)
2. 15548/GP FOR REVENUE (AP)
The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
As both the Writ Petitions filed by the same petitioner
against the same respondents assailing the notification
notifications issued
inviting the applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker, both
are taken up to dispose of together and shall be governed by this
Judgment.
2. W.P. No.30071 of 2015 is submitted for Writ of Mandamus
to declare Notification issued vide Rc.No.956/A4, dated
28.04.2015 changing the roster from O.C. to B.C. "B" vide
notification dated 08.09.2015, RC No.46/2014-15, by the 3rd
respondent and altering the age condition as illegal, arbitrary,
violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and
consequently prayed to set aside the aforesaid notification.
3. W.P. No.32954 of 2015 is submitted for Writ of Mandamus
to declare the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the
Advertisement dated 30.09.2015 vide Rc.No.46/2014-15, calling
for fresh applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker as illegal,
arbitrary and contrary to the order dated 15.09.2015 in W.P.
No.30071 of 2015 as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of
Constitution of India and consequently prayed to set aside the
same.
4. The facts succinctly are that the 5th respondent has issued
notification inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Worker
in Akkanna Agraharam Village, Regidi Amudalavalasa Mandalam
of Srikakulam District and the petitioner herein applied to the said
post in O.C. category as fixed in the roster and the petitioner
herein was called for interview and without any reason the said
notification was cancelled.
5. And the roster is drawn as per the selection made earlier,
as per State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 which are
applicable to the present post and the roster is at 100 point.
6. The petitioner was made belief that selection will be held by
the respondents and the respondents have created impression in
the mind of the petitioner thereby attracting the doctrine of
legitimate of expectation. While so, the respondents again have
issued another notification calling for applications in the month of
March, 2015 changing the roster from O.C. to B.C. "B" and the
roster cannot be changed at the whims and fancies of the
respondents and there is a procedure entailed in the Act and the
respondents do not have unfettered powers to change the roster
and the petitioner made a request under Right to Information Act
to furnish the reasons for changing the roster from O.C. to B.C.
"B" and the respondents have given information stating that it was
mistake committed by the lower authorities and the reason given
by the authorities is un known to law and absurd and the intention
of the respondents is politically motivated.
7. As per the earlier notification, the petitioner was within the
age limit, now the petitioner has become ineligible to apply the
post further for no fault of her and the petitioner cannot be
deprived and the respondent's action in altering the age condition
by the roster is contrary to the Andhra Pradesh State and
Subordinate Service Rule, 20 and violative of Article 14, 16 and
21 of Constitution of India.
8. Therefore, it is prayed to direct the respondents herein to
declare the notification dated 08.09.2015 vide RC No.46/2014-15
issued by the 3rd respondent altering the age condition and
change of roster system is being illegal, arbitrary and violative of
Articles 16 and 21 of Constitution of India.
9. The unofficial respondent No.6 was impleaded as per the
Court order dated 12.02.2024 vide I.A. No.1/2024 in W.P.
No.32954 of 2015.
10. Heard Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Krishna Rao M, learned counsel for unofficial
respondent and learned standing counsel for official respondents.
11. At the outset, it is the contention of the petitioner that due to
change of the roster from O.C. to B.C. "B" without asserting any
reasons after calling for interviews, the respondents have
changed the roster without assigning any reasons is unknown to
law and which action of the respondents amounts to arbitrary
action. In order to accommodate the unofficial respondent, the
respondents have changed the roster from O.C. to B.C.-"B" and
therefore prayed to set aside the subsequent notification which
was issued changing the roster from O.C. to B.C. "B". And the
reasons assigned for changing the roster, is by mistake is also
unknown to law and the respondents cannot change the
notification to their whims and fancies.
12. When this Court has suspended the notification, the
respondents cannot issue subsequent notification which is in
violation of the orders of this Court in W.P. No.30071 of 2015 and
therefore on the above said grounds it is prayed to quash the
subsequent notification dated 30.09.2015.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the official respondents filed
their written statements asserting that the initial notification was
issued on 08.09.2015 for the post of Anganwadi Worker and in
the said notification, the post of Anganwadi Worker was shown in
the category of O.C. as per the roster and called for applications
and the petitioner is applied for the said vacancy. While the
matter stood thus, the authority found that as per the roster the
vacancy was not for O.C. but it is for the BC-"B" and the mistake
was occurred due to hurry, the authority rectified the mistake and
issued another notification while cancelling the earlier notification
by changing the roster from OC to BC-"B" and the 6th respondent
i.e. unofficial respondent applied for the said post under the B.C.
-"B" category and she was selected. Despite, 6th respondent is
being selected, she has not been given the post and the 6 th
respondent has lost service of nearly 8 years due to the hurry the
mistake was crept and the mistake was rectified by issuing
another notification. There is no such arbitrary on the part of the
respondent except for the reason stated above and therefore
prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent
would submit that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable, and
even assuming that the official respondent has cancelled the
notification without assigning any reason much less a valid
reason, the petitioner do not have any indefeasible right as the
petitioner was not selected and no appointment order was given
to the petitioner and the authorities can cancel the notification and
that legitimate expectation into play/operation, once the petitioner
selected and if no appointment is given and no crystallized right is
involved and relied on the Judgment in Abhishek Gupta and
others v. Jammu and Kashmir Bank limited and others in W.P.(C)
No.913 of 2020 and relied on the para No.69, which is extracted
thus:
The question as to whether the cancellation had
reasonableness attached with it, also finds its answer in the
above paragraph wherein the court enumerated the whole
situation in which the process came to be cancelled. The
impugned cancellation, therefore, is held to have had the
reasonableness attached with it and it was not arbitrary.
and he would urge this Court to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
15. In view of the above said contentions raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, the point for
consideration is whether the subsequent notification issued by the
5th respondent is liable to be set aside or not?
16. The Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules
classifies all posts into two categories namely (1) Selection Post
and (2) Non-Selection Post. All non-gazetted posts are declared
as non-selection posts.
17. The post, in the present notification issued by the 5 th
respondent is either selection post or non-selection post, it is a
post of honorarium. Therefore, the State and Subordinate
Service Rules have no application and even the roster 100 point
is not applicable for the post of Anganwadi Worker, as the State
and Subordinate Service Rule have no application for the post of
Anganwadi Worker.
18. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh Dalal and others v. State
of Haryana and another1 held that if the process of selection for
recruitment is not finalized and culminated into selection list, the
candidates have no right to appoint and the Government is fully
competent to stop the recruitment process before candidates are
appointed and candidates have no vested right to get the process
completed except the action of the State should justify on the
anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
19. The same principal was reiterated in the case of State of
M.P. and others v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and others2, wherein
it was laid down by their Lordships that the State Government has
power to laid down the recruitment Rules and if the recruitment is
not resulted any final decision in favour of the candidate then it is
always open for the State to stall the selection and no candidate
shall have an accrued right. And the Government is entailed to
conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and
make final recruitment. No candidate acquired any vested right
against the State and the State is entitled to withdraw the
notification and issue a fresh notification as per the amended
rules.
20. As seen from the two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
the ratio of these case is that the State has an efficacious power
to recall the recruitment process and no candidate has any
vested right to enforce by way of Writ of Mandamus.
21. In the present case, there is no such selection process was
completed and no vested right was created in favour of the
1993 Supp.(2) SCC 600
(1994) 6 SCC 151
petitioner herein. Therefore, the respondent authorities have
every right to issue fresh notification. And as discussed supra,
the roster has no application to the Anganwadi Post as this is not
a civil post under Article 310 of Constitution of India, and the
State and Subordinate Service Rules has no application to the
Anganwadi Post. The aforesaid Judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court which categorically alluded that the State can
cancel a notification.
22. And it is well settled law that the advertisement notice does
not confer any right on a candidate, who responds to the notice,
to be considered for advertised post, to ask for finalization of the
selection process or a right to oppose withdrawal of the post
advertized or resist the abandonment of the selection process.
The advertisement is nothing but a notice to the general public
regarding availability of advertised vacancies, so as to enable the
candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria to submit their
applications, which does not gives any right to the applicants.
23. The reason assigned for cancellation of the notification
cannot be said as arbitrary, when it came to the knowledge of the
respondent authorities that the Anganwadi post is belongs to BC-
B, but it was notified as OC category, rectifying the mistake, they
have issued a subsequent notification.
24. As per the discussion supra, the petitioner does not get any
right to ask for Writ of Mandamus to cancel the notification where
no such accrued right was created in the petitioner and the State
is at liberty to cancel the notification. Viewing in any manner, the
Writ Petition must fail. Resultantly the Writ Petitions are
dismissed. However, no costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending in
these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
Date: 01.05.2024
Harin
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO
W.P.Nos. 30071 and 32954 OF 2015
Date: 01-05-2024
Harin
