Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R. Ramanjineyulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 2021
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.16320 OF 2020
ORDER:
Initially this writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
"To declare the proceedings in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.09.2020 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in service in the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in pursuance of his selection based on merit in the first list."
Later, the prayer was amended by order of this Court in I.A.No.2 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020 by adding the words "and consequential proceedings in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 17.09.2020 issued by the fourth respondent"
Before commencement of argument in the writ petition, the petitioner also impleaded Respondent No.5/C. Sreevidya as party respondent No.5 to the writ petition, as per order in I.A.No.3 of 2020 dated 26.11.2020, since she is an affected party, in case the relief is granted.
The case of the petitioner in brief is that, the second respondent/Commissioner & Director of Municipal Administration had issued Notification No.04/2019 dated 26.07.2019 for 3,786 posts in 13 districts in the State, calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in A.P. Municipal Ministerial Subordinate Services. A merit list of qualified candidates has been notified whereunder a total of 1,735 candidates were qualified in the written test. The petitioner's name stands at Serial No.1455. After verification of the MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 2 certificates, the fourth respondent has issued an order of appointment on 08.01.2020 in the name of the petitioner offering him appointment. Though the petitioner was issued the order of appointment on 08.01.2020, no posting order was issued for a period of 20 days and in the interregnum period, he was forced to submit an undertaking dated 22.01.2020 to the respondents that he will not raise any objection over the final merit list of candidates under the sports quota to be communicated by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh and that he is liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice and that he will not claim any seniority in the cadre of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary, if his case is considered for promotion.
To the shock and surprise, a show cause notice dated 29.08.2020 was issued by the fourth respondent, stating that the District Collector & Chairman, GS/WS DSC, 2019 has approved and forwarded the meritorious sports candidates list of six (6) members and requested the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Anantapuram to issue necessary appointment orders and to cancel the appointment orders of the petitioner.
Therefore, he was directed to submit his explanation/representation within three days from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, as to why appointment order issued earlier shall not be terminated as per conditions specified in Condition (xv) (a,b,c) of the appointment order dated 08.01.2020, since he was not eligible for the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary with reference to his merit under sports quota. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted his MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 3 explanation on 02.09.2020. But, the impugned order in the present writ petition i.e. ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.09.2020 was issued by the third respondent, cancelling the appointment of this petitioner, terminating him from services is now challenged as illegal and arbitrary on the following grounds:
a) The qualifying marks of 40%, 35% and 30% are fixed for OC, BC and SC/ST respectively. But, only 1735 candidates were qualified in the written examination and the merit list was prepared. But, 15 marks were given to all the candidates who appeared for the examination, so also to fill the unfilled vacancies. The fifth respondent became eligible on account of addition of 15 marks to the original marks secured, being a meritorious sports woman.
b) Addition of 15 marks to qualify some other candidate(s) with whom selection committee is interested and thereby addition of marks which is not a part of notification is a subsequent change of the rules of the game and the same is illegal, since the addition of marks is only to appoint the candidates of their choice.
c) Obtaining undertaking dated 22.01.2020 forcibly from the petitioner that he will not raise any objection over the final merit list of candidates under the sports quota to be communicated by the State Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh is not a pre-requisite as per the notification. But, when the petitioner was aspiring for immediate public employment, taking advantage of the situation, the respondents obtained such an undertaking, making him to wait for twenty days without giving posting. When such undertaking is not a prescription in the notification or a pre-
requisite, obtaining such undertaking is an illegality, since such undertaking is nothing but change of rules of the game after completion of the game.
MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the petitioner was given provisional appointment vide Roc.No.757/ 2019/A2/DSC-2019 dated 08.01.2020, incorporating certain conditions. The specific conditions are mentioned in Condition No.(xv), which is as follows:
a. If any superior meritorious Sports person of the second list than the 1st approved list communicated by the SAAP files any objection, appointment orders issued to the 1st list candidates may be cancelled without assigning reasons to the said individuals. b. If any cases filed/to be filed against the appointment orders now going to be issued for the 1st list candidates these appointment orders will be cancelled subject to the outcome of the orders of the Hon'ble Courts.
c. Those who are selected after communication of 2nd list by accumulation of 15 marks and whose certificates verification process is under process, their candidature may be considered as 2nd list, and the eligible candidates in the second list may be filled with the vacant post i.e. after completion of first list. It is contended that, the conditions are not part of the notification and such conditions were incorporated in the order of posting only with a view to cancel the appointment of this petitioner and it is nothing but change of rules of the game after completion of the game. Therefore, it is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh1; Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi2; Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna3; M. Surender Reddy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh4 and N.T. Bevin Katti and others v. Karnataka Public Service Commission5. On the basis of the ratio laid down in the above judgments, the 1 (2008) 3 SCC 512 2 AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2103 (para 8 & 9) 3 (2005) 4 SCC 154 4 (2015) 8 SCC 410 5 AIR 1990 SC 1233 MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 5 petitioner sought to set-aside the impugned order, cancelling the appoint of this petitioner while declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down in the above judgments.
The respondents filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, while admitting about the facts narrated in the writ affidavit, including issue of impugned proceedings, cancelling the appointment of this petitioner on the ground that Respondent No.5 became more meritorious than this petitioner. However, the following are the specific contentions urged in the counter affidavit.
a) As per Rules in force six (6) posts of ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in Anantapuramu District are reserved under Sports quota in which one (1) for open quota and five (5) for local quota. Basing on the eligibility, the preliminary list is prepared by the Respondent No. 3 (District Selection Committee (DSC) rep by its Chairman & District Collector) for GS/WS-2019.
b) As per the instructions and guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.74 Y, T&C (Sports) Dept dated 09.08.2012 and G.O.Ms.No.13 GAD (Ser-D) Dept dt:23-01-2018, Four (4) candidates have been recommended by the SAPP under Sports quota based on their merit. Out of four (4) candidates two (2) candidates have been selected under general category and the remaining two candidates including the petitioner who have secured T-90 merit was selected for the post of ward Education & Data Secretary.
c) As per the list communicated by the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, (it will hereinafter be referred as 'SAAP') the petitioner was called for certificate verification by the Respondent No.3 for GS/WS-2019. After due verification, Respondent No.3 forwarded the same tot Respondent No.4 (Regional Director-cum-Appellate Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Anantapuramu) for issuance of appointment orders.
MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 6 The respondents submitted in the counter affidavit that, provisional appointment order on 08.01.2020 was issued by Respondent No.4 under sports quota to the petitioner as Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary with certain conditions and that the clear instructions of Respondent No.3 to the petitioner was issued by this Respondent No.4, on conditional basis to avoid further complications, as another meritorious list after adding 15 grace marks was pending before SAAP at that point of time and the said fact was brought to the notice of the petitioner from the very beginning and the petitioner is well aware of the said rule provision. After receiving the posting proposals dated 25.01.2020 from the Respondent No.3, DSC for GS/WS-2019, Respondent No.4 has issued posting orders on 28.01.2020. In view of the same, the petitioner was posted and later removed as the other candidates who referred to SAAP after awarding bonus marks became more meritorious than this petitioner, as he was placed at Serial No.18 and other 17 candidates were more meritorious than this petitioner. Therefore, they were selected and consequently the cancellation order of this petitioner's appointment is not in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
During hearing, Sri Motupalli Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that, when the Notification No.4/2019 dated 26.07.2019 did not prescribe addition of marks, preparation of second list, cancellation of appointments after second list, subsequently for different reasons known to the selection committee, 15 bonus marks were awarded in Anantapur District only and after awarding bonus marks, 20 candidates were MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 7 referred to Spots Authority of Andhra Pradesh after completion of entire recruitment process and issue of appointment order to this petitioner. On the pretext that 17 candidates became more meritorious than this petitioner, his selection was cancelled and he was deprived of employment, thereby, the petitioner is put to serious loss and such removal is arbitrary, hit by Articles, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Apart from that, imposing such conditions for cancellation in the posting order and addition of 15 marks etc, is nothing but change of rules after the game is over, which is impermissible under law, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above. On the basis of subsequent clauses brought into existence, removal of this petitioner from the services of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary is highly illegal, arbitrary, and by applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to set-aside the impugned order and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to permit this petitioner to continue in the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary.
Whereas, Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-I while admitting everything as narrated in the writ petition, supported the case of the respondents on the ground that the District Selection Committee felt that it is necessary to add 15 bonus marks to select more candidates, as the number of vacancies remained unfilled, thereby, the District Selection Committee decided to add 15 bonus marks and on account of addition of 15 marks to 20 candidates in meritorious sports quota, MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 8 they were referred to Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh and the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh found that 17 candidates are more meritorious than this petitioner, thereby they were entitled to be appointed as Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary. This petitioner was at Serial No.18 in the list of meritorious sports persons, whereas, the posts notified are six in number, thereby the petitioner was terminated from the services, as he became ineligible on account of addition of 15 marks, and he was terminated from the services based on the conditions incorporated in the appointment order and undertaking dated 22.01.2020 furnished by this petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that, termination of this petitioner is only in compliance of conditions incorporated in the letter of posting and undertaking, but not otherwise, thereby, it is directly in accordance with law and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the sole point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether incorporation of Condition No.(xv) in appointment letter vide Roc.No.757/ 2019/A2/DSC- 2019 dated 08.01.2020 issued by Respondent No.2/Regional Director of Municipal Administration & Chairman, Regional Level Committee, Anantapur and obtaining an undertaking dated 22.01.2020 amounts to change of rules after completion of selection process. If so, whether termination of the services of this petitioner based on changed rules of selection process is illegal and invalid. If so, order of termination impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set-aside?"
P O I N T:
As there is no dispute regarding the facts, it is unnecessary to reiterate the facts. However, it is necessary to advert to Notification No.4/2019 dated 26.07.2019 inviting applications for MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 9 appointment of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in A.P. Subordinate Service Rules. The eligibility criteria are fixed in Paragraph No.2. But, the petitioner admittedly possessed requisite educational qualification, eligibility and he is a graduate in computer science for selection to the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary, as prescribed in Para-3 of the Notification which deals with educational qualification for appointment to the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary. The educational qualification of this petitioner is not in quarrel. Therefore, this Court need not give any stress on the qualification.
The claim of this petitioner is that, he is a meritorious sports person and claimed reservation in terms of Para-4 of the Notification dated 26.07.2019. Para-4 deals with reservation and Para-4.3 explained the meaning of meritorious sports person, which reads as follows:
"The meritorious sportsman means a sportsman who has represented the State or the Country in a nation or international competition or Universities in the Inter- University tournaments conducted by the Inter-University Boards or the State School team in the national sports/games for schools conducted by the All India School Games Federation in any of the games, sports, mentioned below; and any other games/sports as may be specified by the Government from time to time, in terms of Rule 2(19) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules."
However, the list of sports or games is not specified. Para-10 of the Notification deals with Scheme of Examination, whereas, Para-15 deals with procedure of selection, which is vital in the present facts of the case. Therefore, Para-15 is extracted hereunder for better appreciation.
MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 10 "15.1 Each District is the unit of appointment. 15.2 The selection of candidates for appointment to the posts shall be based on the merit in the OMR based written examination, to be held as per the scheme examination enunciated at para 10 above. 15.3 The minimum qualifying marks for consideration of a candidate to the selection process are 40% for OCs, 35% for BCs and 30% for SCs, STs and PHs or as per rules. In the event of Schedule Cast & Schedule Tribe candidates not coming up for selection with the existing minimum prescribed for selection in the competitive examination their selection shall be considered on the basis of rank with reference to their performance in the written competitive examination irrespective of the marks secured. N.B. Mere securing of minimum qualifying marks does not confer any right to the candidate for being considered to the selection. 15.4 Where the candidates get equal number of marks in the OMR based written examination if two or more candidates get equal total of marks, those candidates shall be bracketed. Candidates within the same bracket shall then be ranked 1,2,3 etc according to age i.e, oldest being considered for selection. In case there is tie in age, the person who possesses educational qualification at earlier date would be considered.
15.5 WEIGHTAGE OF MARKS (10%): Ten (10%) percentage of marks as weightage is allowed only for the existing outsourcing/contract employees who are already working in the posts relating to the notified posts in the department, who fulfil the following norms:-
a) Recruitment has been done following due process
b) Qualification criteria has been met
c) Rule of reservation has been followed
d) Local/Non-local norms have been followed 15.6 The Department has the power to assign a candidate to any of the notified posts for which he is considered to be qualified and eligible, subject to fulfilling the selection criterion.
15.7 The appointment of selected candidates will be subject to their being found fit in the appropriate medical classification, and if he/she is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity.
15.8 In the event of candidate getting selected to a post, he/she should stay/reside in the ULB he allotted.
15.9 ANSWER KEY AND MARKS: Answer key would be published on the website and marks of each candidate are also displayed on website. No separate memorandum of marks would be issued." A bare reading of procedure of selection specified in Para-13 of the Notification, it is clear that only one select list strictly adhering to the merit is to be prepared. The authority did not reserve any right to add any bonus marks to any category under reservation to prepare second list based on bonus marks in the MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 11 event of vacancies available and to prepare the second list on addition of bonus marks in the event of vacancies available or to refer the meritorious sportsperson to Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, after addition of 15 marks. Obtaining an undertaking dated 22.01.2020 and incorporation of conditions in Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020 are conspicuously absent in the Notification dated 26.07.2019. Therefore, those acts of the respondents in adding bonus 15 marks, preparing the second list after addition of 15 marks, referring the meritorious sports person to Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh after addition of 15 marks, obtaining of undertaking dated 22.01.2020 and incorporating Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020 in the posting orders are invented subsequent to completion of selection process and after issuing letter of allotment/posting to this petitioner as Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary.
When the notification did not confer any power on the District Selection Committee, awarding bonus marks and preparing second list as stated above, is nothing but change of rules of recruitment process after recruitment is completed. Since obtaining an agreement, incorporation of conditions in the letter of appointment in Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020 depriving employment to the candidates who were already selected in the selection process as per the merit list and appointed to the post. Such subsequent conditions are invalid and illegal.
MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 12 Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government.
In Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & Ors6 the Apex Court observed that, when unfair methods are adopted and selection was completed, the Supreme Court heavily laid down on the recruiting agency i.e. State and ordered for cancellation of such recruitment, as the selection process is lacking fair procedure. The Apex Court observed as follows:
"Recruitment to public services must command public confidence. Persons who are recruited are intended to fulfil public functions associated with the functioning of the Government. Where the entire process is found to be flawed, its cancellation may undoubtedly cause hardship to a few who may not specifically be found to be involved in wrong-doing. But that is not sufficient to nullify the ultimate decision to cancel an examination where the nature of the wrong-doing cuts through the entire process so as to seriously impinge upon the legitimacy of the examinations which have been held for recruitment."
.... where it is possible to segregate persons who have indulged in mal-practices and to penalise them for their wrong- doing, it would be unfair to impose the burden of their wrong-doing on those who are free from taint. To treat the innocent and the wrong-doers equally by subjecting the former to the consequence of the cancellation of the entire process would be contrary to Article 14 because unequals would then be treated equally." If the principle laid down in the above judgment is applied to the present facts of the case, when the respondents took up selection process to provide public employment to the public at large, change of rules or addition of rules subsequent to completion of selection process and after issue of appointment order, cancellation of appointment of this petitioner leads to 6 Civil Appeal Nos 639-640 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021 MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 13 serious irregularity, thereby public will lose their confidence in the selection process for public employment. It creates any amount of suspicion in adopting such procedure of addition of 15 marks, more particularly, incorporation of Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020 i.e. posting order, so also obtaining undertaking, though it is not the prescription or the pre-condition. It is evident from the record that in the entire process, the respondents violated the procedure. Obviously for the reasons which could not be explained by the respondents, the respondents appeared to have invented different procedure which is not specified in Notification No.4/2019 dated 26.07.2019 to select particular candidate on the pretext of taking advantage of the Condition No.(xv) of the posting order and undertaking obtained from the petitioner who is in need of public employment at that time, to survive himself and live as a human being with minimum dignity, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Change of Rules subsequent to completion of selection process or after issuing appointment orders to the selected candidates is nothing but to change of rules of game after completion of game or after starting the game, as held by the Apex Court in catena of judgments referred above.
In N.T. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission (referred supra). Where advertisement is issued inviting applications for direct recruitment to a category of posts, and the advertisement expressly states that selection shall be made in accordance with the existing Rules or Government Orders, MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 14 and if it further indicates the extent of reservations in favour of various categories, the selection of candidates in such a case must be made in accordance with the then existing Rules and Government Orders. Candidates who apply, and undergo written or viva voce test acquire vested right for being considered for selections in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the advertisement, unless the advertisement itself indicates a contrary intention. Generally, a candidate has right to be considered in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement as his right crystallizes on the date of publication of advertisement, however he has no absolute right in the matter. If the recruitment Rules are amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended Rules. Whether the Rules have retrospective effect or not, primarily depends upon the language of the Rules and its construction to ascertain the legislative intent. The legislative intent is ascertained either by express provision or by necessary implication, if the amended Rules are not retrospective in nature the selection must be regulated in accordance with the Rules and orders which were in force on the date of advertisement. Determination of this question largely depends on the facts of each case having regard to the terms and conditions set out in the advertisement and the relevant Rules and orders. Lest there be any confusion, to make it clear that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right for selection, but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant Rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 15 does acquire a vested right for being considered for selection in accordance with the Rules as they existed on the date of advertisement. He cannot be deprived of that limited right on the amendment of Rules during the pendency of selection unless the amended Rules are retrospective in nature.
In B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. v. State of Mysore & Ors7, the dispute related to the validity of appointment of Assistant Engineers. The Public Service Commission invited applications by issuing Notifications for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineers in October 1958, May 1959 and April 1960. The Commission made selection, interviewed the candidates and sent the select list to the Government in October/November 1960. But before the appointment could be made the Mysore Public Works, Engineering Department Services (Recruitment) Rules 1960 came into force which prescribed different provisions than those prescribed in the earlier Notifications in pursuance whereof the Public Service Commission had made the selections. The validity of the appointment made by the Government on the basis of the selection made by the Commission was challenged. The High Court quashed the selection and appointments made in pursuance thereof. On appeal before this Court, validity of the appointment were assailed on the ground that since the appointments had been made after the amendment of the Rules the appointments should have been made in accordance with the amended Rules. A Constitution Bench of the Apex s Court rejected the contention holding that since the whole procedure of issuing advertisement, 7 [1966] 3 SCR 682 MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 16 holding interviews and recommending the names having been followed in accordance with the then existing Rules prior to the enforcement of the amended Rules the appointments made on the basis of the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission could not be rendered invalid.
In Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna (referred supra), the Apex Court held that, once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criteria e.g. minimum percentage of marks can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the Statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the Rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only.
In K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra), the Apex Court held that, changing the criteria after completion of the selection process, when the entire selection was proceeded, was found to be illegal.
MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 17 In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, change of rules after completion of selection process and after issue of appointment order and posting order to this petitioner by incorporating Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020 and obtaining undertaking which was not prescribed in the notification is a serious illegality. Such change of rules of selection process is not legal and valid and thereby, the consequent cancellation of appointment of this petitioner based on the subsequent conditions/rules for selection process is an arbitrary act of the respondents and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Yet, the procedure adopted by the respondents issuing show cause notice and terminating the services of this petitioner is a serious illegality, for the reason that, when the petitioner was appointed without framing any statutory rules, exercising power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for selection to the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary, but based on executive instructions, the process was taken up and when the petitioner was appointed and posted by issuing appointment order and posting order, his services cannot be terminated except by due process of law, in view of the bar under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. But, taking advantage of Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020, the respondents issued show cause notice to this petitioner and terminated him from service. The notification is silent as to the probation period of the persons who were selected MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 18 as Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary. In the absence of specifying period of probation, the petitioner cannot be said to be a probationer to discharge him from the services. Even the order of termination impugned in the writ petition was passed not on the ground of discharge during probation, but on account of his disqualification, in view of referring 20 persons to Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh after addition of 15 marks and obtaining more merit by 17 candidates out of 18, than this petitioner. Such procedure is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, since the petitioner is holding a civil post, thereby the short cut method adopted by the respondents to terminate the services of this petitioner by issuing impugned order, taking advantage of Condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.01.2020 and undertaking dated 22.01.2020 obtained by the respondents from the petitioner is totally unfair and since the subsequent rules incorporated for the first time in the posting letter enabling the respondents to cancel the selection of any particular candidate or termination of services even without notice is a rule incorporated, which is not prescribed in the notification, thereby, it is invalid and illegal, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra. Hence, I find that the order of termination of the services of this petitioner by issuing proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner is deprived of his livelihood on account of his termination from the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
MSM,J WP.No.16320 of 2020 19 In view of my foregoing discussion, writ petition is liable to be allowed, declaring the proceedings in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.09.2020 issued by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India, setting-aside the same, while directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in pursuance of his selection based on merit in the first list.
In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the proceedings in ROC No.757/2019/A2 dated 08.09.2020 issued by the third respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India, setting-aside the same, while directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in pursuance of his selection based on merit in the first list.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:23.03.2021 SP