*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BIKSHAPATHY AND *THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA +W.P.NOs. 20106 of 2004, 20350 of 2004, 20539 of 2004 and 21554 of 2004 +WRIT PETITION NO : 20106 OF 2004 #P. MURALIDHAR ..... PETITIONER Vs. $1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GRUHAKALPA COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GAD SERVICES.A.P. SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 3. K. VENKATA UPENDER REDDY 4. CH. RAMA THIRTHA 5. K. SRIKANTH. .....RESPONDENTS !Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI ^Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR ^Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ADVOCATE GENERAL ^Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR ^Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. NOOTY RAM MOHAN RAO ^Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None appeared. +WRIT PETITION NO : 20350 OF 2004 #M. SURENDER REDDY ..... PETITIONER Vs. $1. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY(SERVICES), GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HYDERABAD. 3. C. SAMPATH KUMAR 4. K. VENKATA UPENDER REDDY .....RESPONDENTS !Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.V.N. ACHARYA ^Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ADVOCATE GENERAL ^Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR ^Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. SATISH ^Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR +WRIT PETITION NO : 20539 OF 2004 #P.V. KRISHNA REDDY ..... PETITIONER Vs. $1. K. RAJAIAH 2. THE A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GRUHAKALPA, HYDERABAD. 3. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GA(SERVICES) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENTS !Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R. MANOHAR RAO ^Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : NONE APPEARED ^Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR ^Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ADVOCATE GENERAL +WRIT PETITION NO : 21554 OF 2004 #CH. MANGA REDDY ..... PETITIONER Vs. $THE SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, GRUHAKALPA, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. .....RESPONDENT !Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M. SURENDER RAO ^Counsel for the Respondent : MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ?CASES REFERRED: 1. 1992(2) S.L.R. 378 2. 1905 A.C. 369 3. (2003)6 S.C.C. 659 4. 2004(1) A.L.D. 288(F.B) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BIKSHAPATHY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA W.P.NOs. 20106 of 2004, 20350 of 2004, 20539 of 2004 and 21554 of 2004 WRIT PETITION NO : 20106 OF 2004 Between: P. Muralidhar s/o Veeranna, 29 years unemployee R/o Regulapadu vil, Via. Jalumuru, Kotabommali mandal, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Gruhakalpa complex, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2. The Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, GAD Services.A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3. K. Venkata Upender Reddy s/o Sanjeeva Reddy, 34 years, R./o Inapamula village, Ketepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4. Ch. Rama Thirtha S/o Venkata Narasaiah, 35 years R/o 8-4-159, Ganesh Nagar, Karimnagar District. 5. K. Srikanth, A.S.O. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records in O.A.No. 3267 of 2004 and Batch on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and quash/set aside the Order dated: 15.10.2004. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.2: ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. NOOTY RAM MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: None appeared. WRIT PETITION NO : 20350 OF 2004 Between: M. Surender Reddy S/o Venkat Narayan Reddy, aged 34 years, occu: Service R/o Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary(Services), General Administration Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Hyderabad. 3. C. Sampath Kumar, unemployed R/o H.No.298, L.I.G. APHB Colony, Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District. 4. K. Venkata Upender Reddy, Teacher, Z.P.H.S. Solipeta, suryapeta Mandal, Nalgonda District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to common Order dated: 15.10.2004 made in O.A.No. 3765 of 2004 and Batch passed by the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to quash the Order in so far as it is against the writ petitioner herein, as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of para 8 of the Presidential Order, 1975 and also contrary to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to finalise the selections to the Group II Posts (Notification 10/99), dehors the G.O.Ms.No. 124 G.A.D. dated: 7.3.2002 by setting aside the said Order of the Tribunal. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. D.V.N. ACHARYA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. SATISH Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MR. ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR WRIT PETITION NO : 20539 OF 2004 Between: P.V.Krishna Reddy S/o Ram Reddy, 42 years, unemployee R/o C/o Laxma Reddy, 1-1-403/C/8, Narmada Hospital Lane, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. K. Rajaiah, age not known, occu: Unemployee R/o Bivipet, Nizamabad District. 2. The A.P. Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Gruhakalpa, Hyderabad. 3. Government of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, GA(Services) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Order of A.P. Administrative Tribunal dated: 15.10.2004 in O.A.NO. 3326 of 2004 and quash the same by holding it as illegal, bad and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.R. MANOHAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.3: ADVOCATE GENERAL WRIT PETITION NO : 21554 OF 2004 Between: CH. Manga Reddy S/o Seetha Rama Reddy, Aged 33 years, Unemployee, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, Gruhakalpa, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to O.A.No. 3768 of 2004 and its Order dated: 15.10.2004 of A.P. Administrative Tribunal and quash the same and further declare that the action of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission in publishing the list of candidates said to have been selected for vacancies in the categories of executive posts without selection of physically Handicapped candidates (except E.O., R.D., and E.O. Panchayats) is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and further to declare that petitioner is entitled to be selected to any one of the Executive Posts by applying Rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules in so far as it relates to Physically Handicapped candidates. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M. SURENDER RAO Counsel for the Respondent : MR. M. VIJAYA KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT: (per G. Bikshapathy J) 1. The Recruitment Notification (Advertisement No.10 of 1999) issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission to Group-II Services is yet to attain the finality, even though legal battle by the unemployed continued to be unabated for over a quinquenial period. Though the procedural deficiencies and legal tangles were cleared by this Court on the earlier occasion. Yet, spate of cases continued to flow from the 2nd round of litigation. This is an apt example as to how the recruitment to various categories of posts is being delayed for years together. 2. These batch of Writ Petitions arise out of the common Order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for brevity the “Tribunal”) in O.A.NO. 3840 of 2004 and Batch, dated: 15.10.2004. 3. Following brief recitals are necessary to appreciate the matter in a proper perspective: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short “A.P.P.S.C.”) issued notification on 28.12.1999 vide Advertisement No. 10 of 1999 calling for the applications for the recruitment to 27 category of posts in various departments consisting of executive and non-executive posts. Out of 27 categories, 10 fall in executive posts and 17 in non-executive posts. While written test and viva voci are the requirement for selection to the executive posts, only written test is the criteria for non-executive posts. In the notification, number of vacancies in each category were not notified, but only in respect of three categories, the number of vacancies were notified viz. 15 posts of Asst. Municipal Commissioner, Grade-III, 8 posts of Asst. Commercial Taxes, 6 posts of Asst. Labour Officer. In respect of other executive cadre posts, the number of vacancies left blank awaiting clearance from the Government, while non-executive cadre only 111 posts were notified in the category of Asst. Section Officers. In respect of other non-executive cadre, number of vacancies were stated as awaited. Notification further stated that the vacancies which arose up to 31.8.2000 were to be filled up. However, during the course of time, the vacancies notified in respect of Asst. Section Officers were withdrawn by the Government in their letter dated: 7.8.2000 and hence the selections were only confined to three categories of executive posts. The A.P.P.S.C. held the written test and held viva voci and published the list. Accordingly appointment Orders were issued to the selected candidates in the year 2001 in respect of the three categories of executive posts referred to above. However, aggrieved by the action of the authorities in withdrawing the Asst. Section Officer posts challenge was made before the tribunal in O.A.NO. 7443 of 2004. The tribunal by an Order dated: 21.12.2002 directed the A.P.P.S.C. to make selection of the candidates to 141 Asst. Section Officers posts for consequential appointment by the Government. In pursuance of the said directions, the candidates, who were in Order of merit in the written test were selected and they were appointed in 2002. Up to this stage we describe as first round selection. However, aggrieved by the Order of the tribunal, in so far as it relates to non-filling up of posts under remaining executive category, Writ Petitions were filed in W.P.No. 2868 of 2002 and 2904 of 2002. This Court by an Order dated: 8.7.2003 disposed of the Writ Petitions with the following directions: “(a) The Government shall assess the vacancy position in respect of the posts covered by Notification No.10/1999 as on 30.8.2002 and fill up the same by candidates who were selected by A.P.P.S.C. duly observing the rule of reservation. (b) The personnel who are to be deployed and adjusted from Surplus Man Power Cell have already been reflected in the Annexure and the total vacancy position was arrived at after giving credit to the number of persons deployed in the direct recruitment quota, however, if there is any surplus man power still unadjusted as on30.8.2000, the Government shall work out the same and deploy those personnel and the appointment shall be made to the remaining vacancies. © The persons who were promoted and posted on temporary basis or ad hoc basis in the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment shall be reverted back to their original posts. (d) The Government shall strictly observe the rule relating to the ratio to be maintained between the direct recruits and the promotees in accordance with the quota prescribed in the relevant Service Rules and neither excess intake shall be allowed to be crept in or the deficiency is allowed to persist except in exceptional or unavoidable circumstances. (e) The entire exercise shall be done within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.” In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the authorities assed 973 vacancies in executive category and 193 vacancies in non-executive category. By this process, this became imperative for the A.P.P.S.C. to interview some more candidates in view of the additional recruitment to the posts as referred to above. However, A.P.P.S.C. entertained a doubt with regard to the preparation of the merit list as to whether one merit list has to be prepared. However, this Court while stating that no clarification was necessary, observed that only one merit list is required to be prepared in respect of the notification No.10 of 1999. Against the said clarificatory Order, the matter was again carried before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No. 7772 of 2004 and the Supreme Court deleted the said portion. 4. A.P.P.S.C. started preparations for making selections, which we described second round selections to the posts referred to above and in that process, it revised the earlier selections so as to make the entire selections on the basis of one merit list. The said revision has the effect of distributing the position of the already appointed candidates in 2001 and 2002 in the posts of Asst. Municipal Commissioners, Asst. Commercial Tax Officers and Asst. Section Officers. Therefore, they filed O.A.NO. 3246 of 2004 and Batch challenging the action of the A.P.P.S.C. in recruiting them to above posts dislocating selections made earlier. Some of the O.As. were also filed questioning the selections on the ground that they should not have been selected for the posts for which they have not given the options. While admitting the batch of O.As., the tribunal granted the following Order: “Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo as it obtains today with respect to the applicants shall be maintained pending disposal of the O.As.” 5. Another batch of O.As. came to be filed in O.A.NO. 3247 of 2004 and Batch contending that while selecting the candidates, the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 124 GAD dated: 7.3.2003 amending G.O.Ms.No. 763 should have been followed and the same having not been followed, the selections are liable to be set aside. Yet, another set of O.As. were filed questioning the action of A.P.P.S.C. for considering their cases for the posts for which nil options/no options were given. In one of the O.A. No.3768 of 2004, challenge was made to the selections on the ground that no reservation was made for Physically Handicapped(hereinafter called “PHC”). It is in contravention of rule 22 of A.P. State and Subordinate Rules. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the counsel for A.P.P.S.C. and the learned Advocate General, the tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: “(i) Whether the impugned selections made by the A.P.P.S.C. call for any interference on the ground that the selections were made by following a single-merit list resulting in upsetting the earlier selections and appointments made in 2001/2002? (ii) Even if the selections made based on single merit list do not call for any interference, are the applicants in (1) O.A.NO. 3426/2004, (2) O.A.NO. 3328/2004, (3) O.A.NO. 3329/2004 and (4) O.A.NO. 3351/2004 entitled to claim that their earlier selections cannot be unsettled on the ground that the A.P.P.S.C. has awarded interview marks indiscriminately in the interviews held in 2004? (iii) Whether the impugned selections made by the A.P.P.S.C. call for any interference as it had not followed the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No. 124, GAD, dated: 7.3.2002 while making selections and also on the ground that rule of reservation in favour of local candidates and reservation as required under Rule 22 of the General Rules was not followed. (iv) Whether the impugned selections calls for interference on the ground that rule of reservation in favour of P.H.C. persons was not followed while making selections? (v) Whether the impugned selections made by A.P.P.S.C. call for any interference on the ground that it had selected certain candidates to posts for which they have not given their preference or indicated ‘Nil’ in the proforma supplied to the candidates. (vi) Whether the applicants in O.A.NO. 3979 and O.A.NO. 3765 of 2004 are entitled for any direction to the A.P.P.S.C. to consider their cases for selection against B.C. © vacancies in Zone-VI notified in Advertisement No.10/1999?” 7. In respect of the first issue, the tribunal held that there was nothing irregular or illegal in A.P.P.S.C. making the selections based on single merit list even if results in upsetting the selections and appointments made in 2001/2002. With regard to the 2nd issue, the tribunal found that the A.P.P.S.C. had not awarded interview marks indiscriminately in the 2nd round of selections and thus answered the 2nd issue in the negative. With regard to the issue No. (iii), the tribunal followed its earlier judgment in O.A.NO. 562 of 2002 and Batch, dated: 27.7.2002 and also for the other reasons recorded in the Order held that the selections made by the A.P.P.S.C. in 2001 without following the amendments issued to G.O.Ms.No. 763, GAD, dated: 15.11.1975 in G.O.Ms.No. 124, dated: 7.3.2002 cannot be sustained and consequently directed the A.P.P.S.C. to review the selection list by following the Presidential Order keeping in view G.O.Ms.No. 124, dated: 7.3.2002. and consequently it found it is not necessary to examine the issue as to whether 70 per cent in favour of local candidates and rule of reservation has to be correctly followed or not which could be examined by the A.P.P.S.C. at the time of review of the selection list as directed. With regard to issue No. (iv), the tribunal held that the selections without giving reservations to PHC persons cannot be said to be illegal and accordingly selections are not liable to be set aside. With regard to the issue no. (v), the tribunal held that there was no merit in the contention of the applicants and therefore, it was held against the applications. With regard to issue No. (vi), it was held against the applicants. Accordingly, the tribunal disposed of the O.As. in accordance with the findings referred to above. Aggrieved by the Orders passed by the tribunal, the present batch of Writ Petitions have been filed. 8. Principally two important issues were argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Firstly, it is contended that the notification was issued in 1999 and the Rules relating to the recruitment as existed at the time of relevant time have to be followed. When once the selection process had commenced, even though the procedure rules are amended during the pendency of final selection, yet, amended rule cannot be implemented as it would tend to unsettle the settled situation. It is further contended that G.O.Ms.No. 124 GAD dated: 7.3.2002 has to be given prospective effect and it cannot be applied to on going selections. It is further urged that G.O.Ms.No. 124 is contrary to the provisions contained in the Presidential Order and hence the appointments have to be only made on the basis of the rule position that existed prior to G.O.Ms.No. 124. The learned counsel have greatly relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in N.T. DEVIN KATTI Vs. KANATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. Even otherwise, it is contended that since some of the appointments were already made even prior to the issue of G.O.Ms.No. 124, such of the appointments which have made prior to issuance fo the said G.O. namely three category of posts i.e. Asst. Municipal Commissioners Grade-III(15 posts), Asst. Commercial Tax Officers (83) and Asst. Labour Officers (6) which were filled in 2001 and posts of Asst. Section Officers (141 posts) which were filled consequent on the directions of the tribunal in 2001 cannot be made applicable to them as by the date of issue of G.O.Ms.No. 124, who were selected for the posts were started functioning in the said post. Therefore, if the process is reversed, it would certainly create administrative dislocation apart from causing prejudice to the service interest of the respective appointed candidates. 9. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General as also the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.P.S.C. and submits that any amendment brought out is presumed to be prospective in effect unless it is specifically stipulated in the respective provisions, but, however, this rule will apply only in respect of the substantive right. In the case of amendment to the procedural law, it is always considered to be retrospective unless it is specifically stated contra. It is also submitted that the principles of interpretation of statutes will equally apply to the interpretation of the administrative Orders issued by the Government from time to time where the issue is not covered by any statutory provisions. Such executive Orders have been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 165 of the Constitution of India and therefore, they yield the same force on par with the statute law. It is also submitted by virtue of the revision of the entire merit list to keep in conformity with the procedure as laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 124 the candidates who were already appointed to the posts in 2001 and 2002 in first round selection have to be rescheduled and they will be relocated in the other eligible posts and in some cases, they may not find place selected list also. Thus, the entire review of the appointments made in the first round was wholly unwarranted. At the most, review could be confined to the posts other than the posts for which the appointment was made in the first round. 10. Elaborate arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned counsel for the respondent with reference to the principle laid down by the Supreme Court, and the tribunal has meticulously considered these contentions. 11. The issue that calls for consideration is whether the procedural rules as issued in G.O.Ms.No. 124 are retrospective in nature. If so, effect of rules on the process of selection undertaken by the A.P.P.S.C.? 12. We need not dilute much on this subject with regard to the retrospective operation of the procedural laws. Right from COLONIAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY LTD. Vs. IRVING upto SHIVA SHAKTI COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, NAGPUR Vs. SWARAJ DEVELOPERS, it is well settled that the statute relating to substantive right is presumed to be prospective, unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. However, while statute concerning with the matters on procedure or evidence which is declaratory in nature is construed to be retrospective unless there is a clear indication that such is not the intention of the Legislature. The Supreme Court was categoric in laying down the principle that no person has a vested right in course of procedure. He has only the right of proceeding in the manner prescribed. If by a statute change, the mode of procedure is altered, the parties are to proceed according to the altered mode, without exception, unless there is a different stipulation. The Full Bench of this Court in MOTICHAND JAIN V. M. JAIKUMAR after considering the copious case law on the subject observed as follows: “From the above, it is obvious that when a repeal of an enactment is followed by a fresh legislation, such legislation does not affect the substantive rights of the parties unless such legislation is retrospective. However, the position of law would be different when it relates to procedural law which is presumed to be retrospective unless it is otherwise provided for in the Act.” 13. In the instant case, the recruitment is required to be confined to the procedure as laid down in G.O.P.No. 763 GAD dated: 15.11.1975. The said G.O. was issued by the Government to meet the requirement under the A.P. Public Employment Organisation fo Local Cadre and Regulation of Direct Recruitment Order, 1975(hereinafter called the “Presidential Order”) issued in G.O.Ms.No.