Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
V. Nagenderlal And Ors. vs The Member Secretary, A.P. State ... on 18 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(6)ALD42
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The controversy in this writ petition is as to the parameters to be taken into account for fixing the date of appointment of an employee, selected consequent upon the selection process by the Selection Committee.
2. The Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, which is the respondent herein, issued Press Notification on 21-8-1988 inviting applications from candidates for selection and appointment to the posts of Assistant Engineer. The selection process comprised of written test and interview by the Selection Committee.
3. The petitioners, who were Engineering graduates at the relevant point of time, responded to the notification and they appeared in the written test. They were subjected to interview by the Selection Committee. On having been selected, they were issued orders of appointment through different proceedings. While the orders of appointment of petitioners 1, 2 and 4 were issued in proceedings B.P.Ms.No.210, dated 4-3-1989, that of petitioners 3 and 5 were issued in proceedings B.P.Ms.No.896, dated 19-8-1989. These orders conform to the ranking assigned to them by the Selection Committee.
4. Subsequent to their appointment, the petitioners were subjected to training for a period of one year. After completing of the training, separate orders were issued as though they were appointed for the first time.In these orders, the petitioners and several others were assigned the rankings in the list on the basis of their performance during the training period. The assignment of ranking in these proceedings was at substantial variance with the rankings assigned to them by the Selection Committee. Ultimately, a consolidated list was issued in B.P.Ms.No.59, dated 7-5-1994 and the seniority of the petitioners was fixed on the basis of the ranking assigned to them on completion of training and the ranking assigned to them by the Selection Committee was totally ignored. The same is assailed in this writ petition.
5. The respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners, along with other candidates were selected by the Selection Committee and were subjected to training. It is their contention that the actual selection process can be said to have been concluded only when they have undergone the training. It is further stated that in the orders issued to the petitioners it was categorically stated that their selection will be subject to the performance in the training and inter-se seniority will be fixed on evaluation of the performance in the training. It is their case that the seniority was assigned to the petitioners on the basis of their evaluation and the same was never changed at any point of time.
6. Sri S. Ganesh Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Selection Committee has selected the petitioners on the basis of their performance in the written test and evaluation and that they were issued orders on the basis of that selection. Once that is so, he contends, the seniority cannot be changed at any point of time, otherwise through disciplinary proceedings. He further submits that the training cannot be said to be part of selection process and the evaluation therein cannot constitute the basis for alteration of the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee. In support of his contention he places reliance on Regulation 26-A of the A.P. State Electricity Board Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations') and submits that when once the Selection Committee has assigned a particular ranking to a candidate the same cannot be altered by any authority.
7. Sri S. Ravindranath, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand submits that the petitioners cannot be said to have been appointed when orders were issued to them subsequent to the selection by the Selection Committee and their actual appointment took place only after completion of their training.According to him, the ranking was assigned to the petitioners on completion of the training. He places reliance upon the clause incorporated in the relevant orders issued to the petitioners when they were initially appointed. In support of his contention he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in MUNINDRA KUMAR v. RAJIV GOVIL1.
8. The respondent had issued notification inviting applications for selection of candidates for the purpose of filing the posts of Assistant Engineers. The selection process comprised of written test and interview by the Selection Committee. Such of the candidates who have been successful in the written test as well as in the interview were appointed through two different proceedings namely B.P.Ms.No.210, dated 4-3-1989, and B.P.Ms.No.896, dated 19-8-1989. The candidates were arranged in these two proceedings on the basis of the ranking assigned to them by the Selection Committee.
9. The contention of the respondent is that the two proceedings cannot be said to be orders of appointment. According to the respondent the actual orders of appointment were issued only on completion of the training by the candidates who are selected by the Selection Committee. In support of his contention learned counsel for the respondent relied on certain clauses contained in these two proceedings. In these proceedings, the opening sentence reads thus:
"Sri.....................is selected provisionally by the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board for appointment as Trainee Assistant Engineer (Civil)......"
10. On the basis of this it is contended that the appointments made consequent upon the selection by the Selection Committee was only as a Trainee Assistant Engineers and a candidate can be said to have been appointed as Assistant Engineer only on successful completion of the training.
11. In this context it is to be examined as to whether the training imparted to the candidates can be said to be part of the selection process. In the notification issued by the respondent for filling up these posts, the process of selection prescribed was as under:
"Selection will be on the basis of performance in the written Test and interview. Selected candidates for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical and Civil) will be on training for a period of one year which does not count for service and during which period they will be paid fixed monthly stipend of Rs.1600/-. Selected candidates shall have to execute a Bond at the time of joining the training to serve the Board for a minimum period of 5 years after completion of training."
12. The paragraph referred to above clearly indicates that the selection process comprised of only the written test and interview. It was for this reason that the selected candidates were required to execute a bond to serve the respondent at least for a period of five years. No rule or condition in the notification is cited to the effect that any candidate who has been selected by the Selection Committee is liable to be discontinued if the candidate does not complete the training successfully. The purpose of training, as in any other case of employment, is to acquaint the selected candidates with the specialization of the job which he is supposed to perform and to train him about the specific requirements of the post to which he has been appointed. By no stretch of imagination, training can be said to be part of selection process. Even the respondent did not have any doubt as regards this.
13. From a reading of the proceedings in B.P.Ms.No.210, dated 4-3-1989 and other similar proceedings, it is evident that the selected candidates were required to fulfil all the conditions of regular appointment. These conditions include production of physical fitness certificate, verification of character and antecedents, execution of Bond undertaking to serve the organisation for a minimum period of five years and production of certificates in proof of educational qualifications, age and social status. Regulation 16-(b) of the Regulations reads thus:
"(b) No person shall be eligible for appointment to any service by direct recruitment unless he satisfies the Recruiting authority;
(i) that he is of sound health, active habits and free from any bodily defect or infirmity unfitting him for such service
(ii) that his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service (Note: For this purpose, the candidates should produce three certificates from three persons of respectable status and/or holding responsible positions, testifying to his conduct and character.
(iii) that such person does not have more than one wife living or if such person is a woman, that she is not married to any person who has a wife living."
14. This Regulation 16-(b) indicates that the verification of various aspects is to be undertaken only at the time of appointment and not when the selection process is still in progress. If the selection process remains incomplete till the completion of the training, compliance with these requirements could have been postponed until the training is successfully completed by the candidates selected by the Selection Committee.
15. If the respondent is permitted to assign ranking on the basis of performance at the training, this would amount to subjecting the petitioners to another process of selection.It would also amount to conferring a superior status to the person or authority undertaking the assessment of the candidates at the training; than the Selection Committee. The Regulations do not provide for assessment of the performance of the candidates after training, for the purpose of assigning the ranking or allotment of date of appointment. Such an exercise is outside the scope and ambit of the Regulations framed under a statute. The mere incorporation of a clause in the order of appointment that the performance of the candidates at the training shall constitute the basis for fixation of inter se seniority does not empower the respondent to ignore the express provisions contained in the Regulations. Such clauses do not have the support of any law.
16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that the selection process remained incomplete till the candidates were imparted the training. The purport of the notification, regulations as well as the ordinary principles of selection clearly establish that the selection of the petitioners was complete on their having been selected by the Selection Committee. The training imparted to them was only subsequent to their having been appointed.
17. Coming to the question of assignment of ranking, it is well established principle that when ever recruitment to a category of post is done through a process of selection, the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee shall be final and that shall hold good throughout the service of the candidates. The appointing authority has no power or discretion to interpolate the same. In a given case the appointing authority may refuse to appoint a candidate selected by the Selection Committee. However, such discretion is not available to change the rankings assigned to the selected candidates by the Selection Committee.
18. In this context, Regulation 26-(a) of the Regulations is relevant to be extracted. It reads thus:
"26. Seniority:- (a) The seniority of a person in a class of service, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candidates drawn up by the Board or other appointing authority as the case may be.
Provided that where no ranking has been fixed in respect of any person in a service, class, category or grade, the seniority of such candidate shall be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade. If any portion of the service of such person does not count towards probation under regulations 14 ( c), (e), 19 and 38 (b), his seniority shall be determined by the date of commencement of his service which counts towards probation."
19. This Regulation, in unequivocal terms, adopts the established principle of law that the ranking assigned by the Selection Committee shall be final. The stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit filed by them states that Regulation 26-(a) of the Regulations is being followed in all the categories except in respect of Assistant Engineers. The relevant portion in the counter affidavit reads thus:
"The above regulation is being followed in all categories except A.Es.In respect of A.Es. Board has decided to impart training to newly recruited Tr.A.Es. in different technical aspects of the Board and evaluate the performance of each Tr.A.E. by awarding marks on the performance thereby decide the inter-se seniority of A.Es. duly following the rule of reservation."
20. The stand taken by the respondent and the practice adopted by them in this regard is contrary to law and their own regulations. It is not supported by any corresponding provision of law.
21. Once the respondent has framed the Regulations, in exercise of its power under an Act, it is bound to follow and implement the same. If the respondent wanted to have a different procedure as regards fixation of assessment of date of appointment, it was open to him to frame a Regulation in that regard. It is not in dispute that except Regulation 26, there is no other provision governing the matter of assessment of date of appointment. Therefore, the action of the respondent in not following Regulation No.26 in respect of the post of Assistant Engineer is absolutely without any basis and cannot be sustained in law.
22. It is admitted that the impugned proceedings were issued only on the basis of the performance of the selected candidates at the training. The same was held not permissible. It is also held that Regulation 26 shall govern the matter of assessment of date of appointment for the post of Engineers also.The impugned proceedings are in violation of the same.Therefore, they are set aside. The respondent is directed to assign the seniority to the petitioners on the basis of the date of appointment consequent upon their selection and the ranking assigned to them by the Selection Committee. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. NO costs.