V. Vishnu vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 412 Tel

     *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKAR REDDY
                          AND
        *THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR


                   + WRIT APPEAL NO.511 OF 2020



% 12-02-2021


# V. Vishnu, S/o Venkataiah, aged about 47 years, Occ:
Teacher, R/o Plot No.204, Shanti Apartment, Near Railway
bridge, Tilaknagar, Hyderabad and others

                                      ........            Petitioners

                               and

$ The State of Telangana
Represented by its Principal Secretary Education Department
Secretariat Hyderabad and others.

                                      ........              Respondents.

< GIST:

> HEAD NOTE:

! Counsel for Petitioner: Sri R. Sushanth Reddy

^ Counsel for Respondents: GP for Education, Telangana K. Udaya Sri S. Rahul Reddy D. Bala Kishan Rao, N. Bhupal Reddy

? Cases referred (1) (2020) 3 SCC 108 (2) 1965 (1) SCR 360 (3) (2013) 4 SCC 540

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

WRIT APPEAL No.511 of 2020

JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar)

Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge

of this Court, in W.P.No.19232 of 2019, dated 21.10.2020, directing the

2nd respondent - Telangana State Public Service Commission (for short,

'the Commission') to re-examine the experience certificates of 39

candidates, the present writ appeal is filed. The Appellants mainly

assailed the correctness of the said direction given by the learned single

Judge of this Court as being contrary to the settled position of law.

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners in W.P.No.19232 of 2019.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed

in the writ petition.

3. Heard Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners;

learned Government Pleader for Education, appearing for the 1st

respondent; Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned standing counsel for the

Telangana State Public Service Commission, appearing for the 2nd

respondent; Sri Nirmala Bhupal Reddy, learned counsel for the 3rd

respondent; Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the 4th respondent and

Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel representing Smt.K.Udaya Sree,

learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 28.

4. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that, the 2nd respondent -

Commission issued Notification No.29 of 2017, dated 02.06.2017, inviting

applications to fill up 304 vacancies to the post of Principals in various

Gurukuls and residential schools run by the Telangana State Government.

The mode of applying to the above posts was specified as through online

process. As per the said notification, the interested candidates were

required to apply for One Time Registration (OTR) through official website

of the 2nd respondent - Commission and all the required information has

to be provided by the candidates through OTR only; the date for making

online registration and submission of application and documents was

specified as between 06.06.2017 to 24.06.2017; as per the notification,

the preliminary (screening) test was to be held on 16.07.2017 and the

main examination was scheduled on 12/13.08.2017. One of the

condition specified in the said notification for the candidates applying for

the above post, is that the documents submitted / uploaded along with

the application through online registration process shall be final, which

includes the prospective candidates filing the proof of possessing teaching

experience of five years, after obtaining the qualifying examination, i.e.,

Post Graduation, and administrative experience of three years; and that

the 2nd respondent- Commission will not entertain the submission of new

documents under any circumstance after the last date specified viz.,

24.06.2017. It is the further case of the petitioners that after going

through all the details specified in the notification, the petitioners have

applied for the vacancies notified and after undergoing preliminary

(screening) test and written examination, the petitioners were shortlisted

for interview in the form of 1:2 ratio. However, the applications of some

of the candidates came to be rejected by the 2nd respondent-Commission,

on the ground, as not being in compliance with the conditions specified in

the notification; the documents submitted, on verification were found not

to be genuine or fabricated. In the said process of screening, the

applications of 914 candidates were rejected by the 2nd respondent -

Commission.

5. Questioning the action of rejection of application by the 2nd

respondent, some of the candidates, whose applications have been

rejected, have approached this Court by filing writ petitions and a learned

single Judge of this Court by a common order, dated 10.04.2019, in

W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch of cases, disposed of the writ petitions;

found fault with the rejection orders passed by the 2nd respondent -

Commission, by a single line order, without assigning reasons, in each of

the rejected candidate's case. The learned single Judge, while allowing

the above batch of writ petitions, further directed the rejected candidates

to submit individual representation by enclosing the experience certificates

to the 2nd respondent - Commission and directed the 2nd respondent to

examine each individual case on merits and pass individual speaking

order. For giving wider publicity to the above direction issued, the 2nd

respondent was directed to cause publication on its website. Pursuant to

the said direction, about 333 candidates submitted their representations

individually. It is stated that of the said candidates who submitted their

individual representations, the 2nd respondent - Commission has

considered the cases of 39 candidates by taking into consideration the

additional documents filed by them, in addition to the documents which

were uploaded online by registering themselves with OTR before the due

date prescribed, i.e. 24.06.2017.

6. The main grievance of the appellants - petitioners, is that the 2nd

respondent - Commission could not have entertained new / additional

documents apart from the documents uploaded along with the online

applications, under the guise of implementing the common order passed

by the learned single Judge of this Court in the batch of writ petitions. As

a consequence of accepting the new / additional documents (experience

certificate), the names of 39 candidates, who's applications were

rejected earlier, now find included in the list of candidates shortlisted for

interview, thereby, the petitioners, who were originally shown as

shortlisted for interview are omitted from the final list of eligible

candidates for interview. Further, it is also contended by the petitioners

that the 2nd respondent - Commission by accepting new / additional

documents from those uploaded at the time of making online applications,

has made 39 candidates eligible for consideration for further selection

process by permitting them to attend interview, and claiming that they

have secured more merit than the petitioners, the petitioners have been

excluded from the zone of consideration in the ration of 1:2. By

permitting and accepting the new / additional documents submitted

subsequent to the closure of the online process of registration, the

candidates, who were not having requisite experience as specified in the

notification, a larger fraud is being perpetrated.

7. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that by

accepting the new / additional documents, the 2nd respondent -

Commission has altered the condition prescribed for making the

applications through online process after the closure, which is not

permitted and thus, the action of the 2nd respondent - Commission is

vitiated. Therefore, it is claimed that the action of the 2nd respondent -

Commission is contrary to the settled legal position. It is also contended

that the petitioners being aggrieved by the same filed the W.P. No. 19232

of 2019 and the learned single Judge of this Court while disposing of the

above writ petition ought not have issued a direction to the 2nd

respondent - Commission to re-examine the experience certificates of 39

candidates, who were made eligible by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the

orders of this court in W.P. No. 5672 of 2019 and batch; and ought to

have directed the 2nd respondent to consider the eligibility of the said 39

candidates as per notification No. 29 of 2017 dated 02.06.2017 on the

basis of the documents submitted through online process of registration.

In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka

State Seeds Development Corporation Limited V/s H.L.Kaveri1..

8. On behalf of the 2nd respondent - Commission, whose action of

including 39 candidates to the list of selected candidates by accepting

additional documents, has been questioned, it is submitted that the 2nd

respondent - Commission was only implementing the common order

passed by the leaned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.5672 of 2019

and batch and no malice can be attributed to the 2nd respondent; the 2nd

respondent - Commission, in compliance with the directions issued by this

court caused publication on its website calling upon the candidates to

submit individual representations whose applications were rejected earlier;

in pursuance thereof 330 candidates submitted their individual

representations; and considering the said representations filed by each of

the individuals, only 39 candidates were considered and found to be

eligible and included to the list of candidates shortlisted for interview. It

is further submitted that, out of 39 candidates, whose candidature was

considered as eligible, 23 candidates were women candidates who were

found eligible for the vacancies reserved under the category for women.

On behalf of the 2nd respondent - Commission, it is also contended that

by accepting the new / additional documents, the 2nd respondent -

Commission did not commit any irregularity and if such new / additional

documents are not accepted and considered, the 2nd respondent -

Commission would have been held as having committed contempt of court

of the common order passed by the learned single Judge.

1 (2020) 3 SCC 108

9. On behalf of the 4th respondent, it is contended that when the

candidature of the 4th respondent was rejected by the 2nd respondent -

Commission, initially without assigning any reason and by passing a single

line order; the respondent had approached this Court by filing W.P.,

though on a different ground, but the said writ petition came to be

disposed of as being covered by the common order in the batch of writ

petitions. Since, the 2nd respondent did not assign detailed reasons while

rejecting the 4th respondent's application initially, the action of the 2nd

respondent - Commission in including the name of the petitioner in the

list of 39 candidates, by considering the additional documents cannot be

found fault with. It is contended that if the action of the 2nd respondent -

Commission of accepting the new / additional documents is held to be not

valid, the 2nd respondent should be directed to assign reasons for

rejecting the 4th respondent candidature on the basis of the online process

of registration, and petitioner be granted liberty to question the action of

the 2nd respondent - Commission, as to the reason assigned for rejection

of petitioner application / candidature.

10. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of

respondent Nos.5 to 7.

11. On behalf of respondent Nos.8 to 28, it is contended that the

respondent No. 8 to 28 are competing for the vacancies reserved under

the women category; there is no challenge to the selection of respondent

Nos.8 to 28 by any other candidate; no prejudice is caused or would have

any impact or bearing to the case of the petitioners; and thus, the order

passed in W.P. No. 19232 of 2019 does not call any interference, as the

impugned order contains safeguards within. However, learned Senior

Counsel does not dispute the directions of the Apex Court in H.L. Kaveri's

case (supra).

12. Having given due consideration to the submissions made as above,

it is to be noted that the 2nd respondent - commission having accepted

new / additional documents along with the individual representations

submitted by the candidates, who's applications submitted through online

registration process in terms of Notification No. 29 of 2017 were rejected

earlier, is an admitted fact. However, in order to examine whether such

course of action by the 2nd respondent is permitted or is in consonance

with the Notification issued, it would be worthwhile to take note of some

of the conditions of the Notification No.29 of 2007 issued by the 2nd

respondent - Commission calling for application to fill up 304 vacancies to

the post of Principal (School) in various Residential Educational

Institutions Societies of the Telangana State Government.

13. As per Para-I, clause 2, of the notification, the candidate is first

required to undertake One Time Registration (OTR) on the official website

of the 2nd respondent before applying for the posts. Clause 3 specifies

that the candidates shall apply online by satisfying themselves about the

terms and conditions of the recruitment and provides the details of

vacancies. Clause 4 thereof deals with educational qualifications and

experience, which the candidate should posses to apply for the post

notified. Para-III of the notification provides as to "How to apply" and

upload the application form, and details the five steps to be followed while

submitting the applications through online. The note 2 and 3 appended to

this para specifies that -

2. The particulars furnished by the applicant in the Application Form will be taken as final and data entry is processed, based on these particulars only by computer. Candidates should,

therefore be very careful in Uploading / Submitting the Application Form Online.

3. Incomplete/incorrect application form will be summarily rejected. The information if any furnished by the candidate subsequently in any form will not be entertained by the Commission under any circumstances. Applicants should be careful in filling-up the application form and submission. If any lapse is detected during the scrutiny, the candidature will be rejected even though he/she comes through the final stage of recruitment process or even at a later stage.

Para-IV of the notification deals with general provisions and clause 2 and

6 read as under -

2. The applications received online in the prescribed proforma available in the website and within the time shall only be considered and the Commission will not be held responsible for any kind of discrepancy.

6. Important - The claim of the candidates with regard to the date of birth, educational / technical qualifications, experience and community are accepted only provisionally on the information furnished by them in their application form and is subject to verification and satisfaction of the Commission. Mere admission to any test or interview or inclusion of the name of a candidate in a Merit List will not confer on the candidate any right for appointment. The candidature is therefore, provisional at all stages and the Commission reserve the right to reject candidature at any stage of the selection even after the advice has been made.

Para V deals with important legal provisions governing the recruitment

process. Para VIII therein specifies the procedure of selection.

14. From a perusal of the notification issued, it is evident that in order

to make an application to the post of Principal, one first needs to register

themselves as per the One Time Registration (OTR) through the official

website of the 2nd respondent to obtain ID by submitting the documents

like Educational qualification, Community/Caste Certificate, Aadhar

number and other details specified. Once such OTR has been done and

ID obtained, the candidates are required to make application online by

selecting the notification number as detailed in step-II of Para-III of the

notification. The conditions of notification also specifies that before

obtaining registration and making an application, one needs to verify the

details thoroughly, as once submitted, the same will be taken as final and

no further alterations would be allowed.

15. It is pursuant to the said notification issued, the candidates, who

found themselves to be eligible, obtained OTR through the official website

of the 2nd respondent - Commission and submitted their applications

along with necessary documents. However, the 2nd respondent, having

found the applications made by 904 candidates not being eligible, rejected

the same. The 2nd respondent, instead of sending a communication to

each of the candidate separately, specifying the reason of rejection of

his/her application, has published a list of the candidates whose

applications are rejected with one line reasoning. Some of the candidates

including the 4th respondent, whose applications came to be rejected,

approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions with the one of

such writ petition being numbered as W.P.No.5672 of 2019. By the writ

petitions so filed, the candidates who's applications were rejected,

questioned the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting their applications

without assigning any valid reason, and such action being in violation of

principles of natural justice. In all the writ petitions filed by the petitioners,

as noted in the order passed in W.P. No. 5672 of 2019 and batch, it is

their common case that they have requisite qualification and are fully

eligible and qualified to be appointed as Principal; that though they have

enclosed requisite duly attested experience certificates issued by the

competent authority, the 2nd respondent-Commission had unilaterally

rejected their cases by single line reason for each candidate and without

assigning detailed reasons as to why the certificates produced by the

petitioners are not valid.

16. This Court, by considering the said submission made and the

manner in which the 2nd respondent has passed the order rejecting the

applications of 914 candidates, while allowing the writ petitions filed,

directed the candidates whose applications were rejected to submit

individual representations by enclosing the experience certificates and

further directed the 2nd respondent - Commission upon receipt of such

individual representation to examine each individual case on its merits and

pass individual speaking orders within a period of four weeks, indicating

the reasons for rejection. Though, on behalf of the 2nd respondent -

Commission, it is submitted that pursuant to the said direction, out of 914

candidates who's applications were rejected by the 2nd respondent, 330

candidates have submitted individual representations enclosing experience

certificates, which in some cases were the same as submitted online, but

in few cases, the candidates have submitted new / additional documents.

Though on behalf of the 2nd respondent, it is contended that the said

course of action adopted by 2nd respondent was permitted in order to give

effect to and for implementing the common order passed by the learned

single Judge of this Court, it is to be seen that the learned single Judge,

while disposing of W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch, did not direct the 2nd

respondent - Commission to accept any new documents and only directed

to submit individual representations enclosing the experience certificates,

which implies the certificates which are already uploaded. Any other

interpretation would be in violation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court which are relied upon, referred to and discussed (infra)

and as such the interpretation sought to be given by the 2nd respondent-

Commission is misplaced.

17. On the contrary, the learned single Judge of this Court while taking

note of the stand of the petitioners in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch, of

enclosing requisite duly attested experience certificates and the 2nd

respondent not having considered the same in correct perspective, while

finding fault with the rejection order of the 2nd respondent, has given a

categorical finding. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.5672 of

2019 reads as under:

'This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the parties, is of the considered view that the Telangana State Public Service Commission has rejected the cases of nearly 914 cases without assigning detailed reasons. From a perusal of the impugned rejection order, it is palpable that it is made without application of mind, as against S.No.17, it is stated "no administrative exp." and against S.No.21, it is stated "no teaching exp." This kind of rejection order is arbitrary and the same cannot be sustained. When the petitioners have contended that they have submitted requisite experience certificates of both teaching experience and administrative experience, without dealing their individual case, the Telangana State Public Service Commission has rejected their cases with a simple rejection order running into 31 pages and against each candidate, a single line reason is assigned. (underlining supplied by us now) It is interesting to note that the rejection order starts as follows: "The following candidates have been Rejected for the post of Principal in Schools vide Notification No.29/2017 due to the various reasons mentioned against their Hall Ticket numbers." Giving a single line reason for rejection of each candidate shows that the rejection orders are passed without application of mind. If the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the cases of the candidates were rejected based on the respective DEO's report is correct, then the Telangana State Public Service Commission should have passed individual rejection orders based upon the DEOs report, but no such attempt is made. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned rejections orders passed by the Telangana State Public Service Commission are liable to be rejected. '

18. A reading of the above portion of the order clearly goes to show

that it is the case of the petitioners therein that they had filed all the

requisite documents necessary along with the applications, which the 2nd

respondent - Commission had failed to consider, and rejected their

applications. After noting the said submission made on behalf of the

petitioners, the learned single Judge of this Court directed the 2nd

respondent - Commission to consider the applications of the petitioners

therein individually and also allowing the candidates to submit their

individual representations.

19. Thus, this court is of the considered view, the said direction of the

learned single Judge, by no stretch of imagination, permitted the 2nd

respondent - Commission to accept new / additional documents apart

from the documents already uploaded along with the submission of the

application online, upon issuance of Notification No. 29 of 2017 in June,

2017 for being considered. Though, it is sought to be contended that the

2nd respondent - Commission was only to implementing the common

order passed by the learned single Judge whereby the rejected candidates

were directed to submit individual representation by enclosing the

experience certificates to be considered by the 2nd respondent on its

merits in each individual case, the said direction can not be construed as

permitting filing of new / additional documents by the rejected candidates,

contrary to the assertion made on oath by each of the petitioners in the

writ affidavit filed before this court. Further, if the said contention urged

by the 2nd respondent is accepted, more so after a lapse of two years

after the entire process of making application in pursuance of notification

issued, screening and written test having been completed, would amount

to introducing / altering conditions of the notification issued.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as early as in the year 1965 in C.

Channabasavaih etc. v. State of Mysore and others2, had observed

as to how a Public Service Commission should conduct itself in dealing

with the public appointments and had observed that -

"It seems surprising that Government should have recommended as many as twenty-four names and the Commission should have approved all those names without a single exception even though in its own judgment some of them did not rank as high as others they had rejected. Such a dealing with public appointments is likely to create a feeling of distrust in the working of Public Service Commission, which is intended to be fair and impartial and to do its work free from any influence from any quarter." (underlining supplied by us) However, even after four decades, the change as envisaged, in the

conduct of Service Commission in dealing with such public appointments

seems to be far from being reaslised, as it is well known that whenever a

general recruitment is undertaken, the same is embroiled in litigation in

one form or the other.

21. In Tej Prakash Pathak and Others v. Rajasthan High Court

and Others3, a three judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while

referring the matter to be considered by a larger bench of the Apex Court,

with regard to the application of principle "rules of the game" when the

change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny, whoever dealing

with change of eligibility criteria, was pleased to observe that -

"No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the "rules of the game" in so far as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore, etc., in

2 (1965) 1 SCR 360 = AIR 1965 SC 1293 3 (2013) 4 SCC 540

order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results."

22. Further, in a recent judgment rendered in Karnataka State

Seeds Development Corporation Limited V/s H.L.Kaveri (supra),

on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while allowing the SLP filed

against the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a

Writ Appeal directing the appellant Corporation to consider the claim of

the respondent taking note of the work experience certificate which was

not enclosed with the application, held as under -

14. It remains undisputed as recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the order after perusal of the original records of which reference has been made that the first respondent had not enclosed her experience certificate along with the application and her statement on oath was found to be factually incorrect and the rejection of her application was indeed in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013 for which the Corporation was not required to assign any reasons which although was disclosed before the Court and noticed by the learned Single Judge in its judgment.

15. In the given circumstances, we do not find any error being committed by the Corporation in its decision-making process while rejecting the application of the first respondent for non- fulfilment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the advertisement dated 11-11-2013.

23. Having regard to the above, it is settled position of law that

changing the rules of game in the middle of selection process or during

the process of selection or after the process is over, is not permitted or

valid. Even in the facts of the present case, the 2nd respondent ought not

to have or could not have accepted new / additional documents from the

rejected candidates, thereby making the condition of - "no additions /

change being permitted" specified in the notification, otiose. Having

regard to the above settled position of law, the action of the 2nd

respondent - Commission in accepting / permitting submission of new /

additional documents by the candidates who's applications submitted

online were found to be not in compliance with the conditions specified in

the notification and stood rejected earlier, cannot be said to be valid or

justified.

24. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the understanding of 2nd

respondent - Commission, of the order in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and

batch, as permitting the candidates to file fresh / new experience

certificates or additional documents in addition to the documents that

were submitted along with their online applications through OTR process,

is misconceived.

25. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the action of

the 2nd respondent in considering the new/additional documents

submitted by 39 candidates cannot be held to be valid and also the

direction of the learned single Judge in directing the 2nd respondent -

Commission to re-examine the experience certificates of 39 candidates in

view of the objection raised by the petitioners, also cannot be sustained.

26. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed; direction of the learned

single judge to re-examine the new experience certificates of the 39

candidates furnished subsequently after the submission of application

through online OTR process, is hereby set aside; the action of the 2nd

respondent - Commission in permitting the rejected candidates to submit

new / additional documents and experience certificates cannot be held to

be valid; and the action of the 2nd respondent - Commission in

considering such new / additional documents in respect of 39 candidates

is also liable to be rejected. The 2nd respondent- Commission is hereby

directed to consider only the documents uploaded by each of these 39

candidates along with the application submitted through online process, if

not considered earlier, on its merit and pass individual speaking order and

communicate the same to the candidate as directed by this court vide

order dated 10.04.2019 in W.P. No. 5672 of 2019 and batch.

27. In so far as the claim of 4th respondent is concerned, as the said

respondent is also part of the 39 candidates in respect of whom

new/additional documents are accepted and considered, since, it is

claimed that even otherwise the 4th respondent candidature would be

eligible, the 2nd respondent - Commission shall consider the application

without reference to the new / additional documents submitted, on its

merits; pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the 4th

respondent-candidate. Upon such communication, it is open for the 4th

respondent to work out its remedies, if aggrieved by the order so passed.

28. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the

light of this final order. No order as to costs.

_________________________ JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

_____________________ JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR Date: 12.02.2021 GJ LR copy to be marked.