Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
N. Sathyabalaji Rao vs A.P. College Service Commission And ... on 5 December, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALT187
Author: Bilal Nazki
Bench: Bilal Nazki
ORDER D.S.R. Varma, J.
1. Both the writ petitions are filed challenging the judgment rendered by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short "the Tribunal") in O.A.No. 131 of 1996, dated 14-7-1998.
2. By the said judgment, the Tribunal while allowing the O.A., set aside the selection of the 3rd respondent therein to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology, pursuant to the Notification No. 6/95, dated 07-9-1995, and directed the 1st and 2nd respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant therein (the 2nd respondent in W.P.No. 22780 of 1998 and 1st respondent in W.P.No. 15657 of 1999) for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology.
3. Writ Petition No. 22870 of 1998 was filed by the 3rd respondent in O.A.No. 131 of 1996 while Writ Petition No. 15657 of 1999 was filed by 1st and 2nd respondents in the said O.A.
4. Since the issue involved is common and the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is being same, both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.
5. The facts that led to the filing of O.A., and consequently the writ petitions, in brief, are as under:
The applicant in O.A. 131 of 1996 (M. Mohan) appeared for selection to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology along with the 3rd respondent therein (N. Satyabalaji Rao). Through Notification No. 6/95, dated 7-9-1995, the A.P. College Service Commission called for applications for appointment to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology. In the said notification, as regards qualification, it was indicated at Item No-4 that "only those candidates who possess the requisite educational qualifications and are in possession of the Provisional/Original pass certificate to that effect as on the date of submission of application are eligible. However, it appears that the date of notification was 7-9-1995 and the last date for receiving the applications was 16-10-1995. Undisputedly the 3rd respondent in the O.A., was not qualified. He appeared for the examination conducted in the month of April 1995 but the results were not announced by the date of notification or by the last date for receiving the applications. However, since he appeared for the written examination, he was also called for the interview by the A.P. College Service Commission along with 2 other candidates and the applicant before the Tribunal was one among those 3 candidates. Eventually, the 3rd respondent (N. Satyabalaji Rao) in the said O.A., was selected. Noticing that the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal, was not qualified either on the date of notification or on the last date of receiving the applications and not eligible for making an application at all, the applicant had filed the said O.A. The Tribunal, relying on the decisions of the apex court, held that the selection of the 3rd respondent was bad and set aside the same and further directed the 1st and 2nd respondents therein to consider the case of the applicant for selection to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology subject to eligibility, suitability and in accordance with the merit. Challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal, the unofficial respondent in the O.A.,/successful candidate in the selection, filed W.P.No. 22870 of 1998 and the other 2 official respondents in the O.A., have filed W.P.No. l5657 of 1999.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant in the O.A., was not selected through selection. The other 2 candidates who were interviewed besides the applicant have been permitted to appear for the written test even though they did not produce any Provisional/Original pass certificate on the ground that they appeared for final year Post Graduation examination and the results could not be announced as on the last date of submission of applications i.e., 16-10-1995. No doubt, since the time given for appearing for the written test was very short, having regard to the fact that the Post Graduation examinations were already held in the month of April 1995 and the results were being expected shortly, the 3rd respondent in the O.A., was permitted to appear for the written test. It was further stated by the official respondents that N. Satyabalaji Rao (3rd respondent in O.A., and petitioner in W.P.No. 22870 of 1998), having been qualified in the written test, submitted his Post Graduation Provisional Pass Certificate for verification at the time of interview held on 11-1995. It was further contended by them that they are not proper parties to interfere with the selection process.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicant before the Tribunal contended that the applicant was one among the candidates called for interview as postulated in the notification. He further contends that the unofficial respondent ought not to have been permitted to appear for the written test. In other words, the application of the 3rd respondent in the O.A., ought not to have been received by the authorities inasmuch as he did not possess the requisite qualifications as on the date of making application in response to the notification. It is further pointed out that he did not possess requisite qualifications even on the date of written examination. Hence, the selection of 3rd respondent in O.A., was contrary to the selection process indicated in the notification.
8. In order to substantiate his contentions, reliance has been placed on U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, , Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 706 and State of Rajasthan v. Hitendera Kumar Bhatt, .
9. All the above 3 decisions have been considered by the Tribunal and the relevant portions of those decisions have also been extracted in the impugned judgment. Hence, there is no necessity to re-extract the same. However, a perusal of the decisions, referred to supra, the principles laid down by the apex Court is absolutely consistent that a candidate applying for a particular post should necessarily possess the qualification as on the date of making the application. But, in the instant case, admittedly the petitioner in W.P.No. 22870 of 1998 did not possess the requisite qualifications either on the date of notification or on the last date of receipt of application or even on the date of appearing for the written examination.
10. Even in the said notification, there is no indication that the official respondents reserved their right to relax or modify the terms or conditions of the selection in the event of any difficulty or for any justifiable reason. In other words, the notification issued in this regard is totally devoid of any such right of reservation. Therefore, in such a case, we affirm the judgment of the Tribunal, which was passed relying on the decisions, referred to supra, of the apex court to the extent of setting aside the selection of petitioner in W.P.No. 22870 of 1998.
11. At this stage, the question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant before the Tribunal for selection to the post of Lecturer in Anthropology subject to eligibility, suitability and in accordance with merit?
12. In this context, it is to be noticed that from the successful candidates in the written examination, interviews shall be conducted by calling upon the candidates on 1:3 ratio. We are of the view that when once the very application made by the petitioner in W.P.No. 22870 of 1998 itself is not in conformity with the notification, consequently the other successful candidate in the written examination would be deprived of an opportunity of being called for the interview. In other words, the total elimination of the successful candidates would have in fact resulted in calling for another candidate. In such a case, the selection would again be open for all such 3 candidates. In such an event, we are of the view that the selection must have been made afresh calling for the eligible candidates to the interview. Therefore, it is not proper for the Tribunal to direct the official respondents to consider the case of the applicant before it, of course subject to certain conditions namely; the eligibility, suitability and in accordance with merit, which virtually amounts to directing the official respondents to select either the applicant or the other candidate. In other words, the selection and competition would be confined to only between 2 candidates but not 3 as required under the notification. Hence, we are of the view that it is desirable to direct the official respondents to call for the candidates at 1:3 ratio, who passed in the written examination, in the order of merit, for the interview and select the candidate for the post of lecturer in Anthropology.
13. It is learnt that the collegiate Service Commission, which was in existence at the time of issuing notification and the selections, is no longer in existence as on today since the same was repealed recently. It appears that the selection process has been entrusted to the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission for various reasons.
14. Hence, it is clarified that any selections for the post of lecturer in Anthropology shall be made in accordance with law existing as on to-day.
15. Having regard to the settled position of law, the writ petitions are devoid of merits and hence they are liable to be dismissed.
16. With the above observations, the writ petitions are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.