Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: selection process completed in R. Ramanjineyulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 2021Matching Fragments
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?"
.... 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 Civil Appeal Nos 639-640 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021 MSM,J 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 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 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 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 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.