IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 14963 of 2007 Between: M.S. Kowmudi, D/o. Sesha Rao, Door No.26-16-62, Akulavai thota, Guntur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commissioner, Grukhakalpa Complex, Nampally, Hyd. 2 The Prl., SEcretarya to Government of A.P., General Administration Dept., Secretarit, Hyd, 3 The Commisioner of Employment and Traning, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or direction, mor eparticuarlly one int henatureof writ of Mandmaus to set aside the orders passed by the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.no.692 of 2005, dt. 7.9.2006 after declaring the same as contrary to principles of Prospective applicability of the Judgments and the clarificatory order of the Supreme Court dt. 29.6.2006 with regarding to STriking down of Act 20/2000 and consequently direct the respondents to revalidate the petitioners selection and issue appointment orders tothe post of Junior Employment officer, in the interest of Justice and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO PHILKHANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Andrha Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 692 of 2005 dated 7.9.2006 and to declare the same as contrary to principles of prospective applicability of the judgments and the clarificatory order of the Supreme Court dated 29.6.2006 with regard to striking down of Act 20 of 2000 and consequently direct the respondents to revalidate the petitioner’s selection and issue appointment orders to the post of Junior Employment Officer in the interest of justice. O.A.No. 692 of 2005 was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to call for the records of the first respondent pertaining to revised selection list for the group II service executive posts published on 15.2.2005 and connected records thereon and quash the same by holding and declaring that the candidates selected as per the rule of reservation and Categorized as per Act 20 of 2000 are entitled for appointment orders and subsequent striking of the Act 20 of 2000 will not effect the earlier selections and further direct the respondents to recommend and issue the appointment order to the applicant as Junior Employment Officer etc as per the original selection list and recommendations made on 28.6.2004. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant who is an un-employee belongs to SC’B’ community. She responded to the notification given for direct recruitment for Group II Services in Advertisement No. 10/1999 by the Public Service Commission. She had passed written examination and was called for interview and was selected for the post of Junior Employment Officer. Pursuant to the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, the Commissioner of Employment and Training directed the applicant to produce all the original certificates and further the first respondent issued the Memo dated 17.1.2005 to submit revised options and zonal preference. The applicant submitted the same, but unfortunately, in the revised selection list published on 15.2.2005, the applicant was not selected. On enquiry the applicant came to know that the Supreme Court has struck down the A.P. Scheduled Caste (Rationalization of Reservation) Act 20/2000 in its judgment dated 5.11.2004 in Civil Appeal No. 6758 of 2000 and batch and thereafter issued clarificatory order dated 25.9.2006. The Public Service Commission as well as the second respondent in O.A filed counter affidavit stating that the applicant belongs to Zone III and that she secured 313.8815 marks in written and oral test put together. On 31.5.2004 selection for executive posts were made as per S.C. Categorization without application of G.O.Ms.No. 124 and accordingly she was selected as Junior Employment Officer against SC-B(W) reserved vacancy at that time. Subsequently, selection for executive posts were recast on 15.2.2005 in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 124 read with Government Memo No. 42005/Ser.D/2002-1 dated 28.8.2002. It is further stated that in the light of the Judgment of the Apex Court striking down the Scheduled Caste Categorization Act 20 of 2000 the selections have to be revised without scheduled caste categorization. The last SC(W) candidate selected for PC, 1-10 (except P.C9) as a local candidate has secured 331.895 marks where as the last SC(W) candidate who selected as non local candidate, has secured 328.173 marks and the applicant has secured 313.815 marks and she is lower in the merit and 15 more meritorious candidates than the applicant were available in the interview but they could not be selected. Taking into considering all the aspects, the Tribunal held that the applicant could not come up for consideration for appointment to Group II post having regard to her inferior ranking in the merit list. It is further held that as per the established principle reiterated by the Supreme Court time and again that mere recommendation and inclusion of a candidate’s name in the select list shall not give a right in her favour to claim appointment and therefore, the consequential direction sought by the applicant for appointment as junior Employment Officer cannot be granted. Accordingly, dismissed the O.A. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. Sri Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the entire selection process was over and all the original certificates submitted on 7.7.2004 are still in the custody of the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh. When once the applicant’s name appeared in the list communicated by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, recruiting authority on 30.5.2004 vide letter dated 28.6.2004 as selected for the post of JEO in Zone III and once the Supreme Court ordered that all the selections made before the date of the judgment i.e., 5.11.2004, shall not be affected by the striking down of sub-classification of SC into ABC & D and that all the Group based selections made prior to 5.11.2004 shall be honoured, the order passed by the Tribunal stating that the action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with the rules, is illegal and arbitrary. The learned counsel further contended that the expression ‘selection’ has to be given wider interpretation so as to give appointment. He has drawn our attention to the judgment reported in RACHNA VS. STATE OF HARYANA[1], wherein at paragraph 11 it is held as udder: “11. In view of the conclusion drawn above by the Division Bench, no fault has been pointed out by the respondents with respect to the selection process except that the Election Model Code of Conduct had come into force on 17.12.2004 and the result was announced on 21.12.2004. The petitioners cannot be denied of their valuable right to be declared successful by the Commission. To be or not to be may have been a dilemma faced by Hamlet. The position in the present scenario was plainly converse and did not admit any doubt whatsoever. The issuance of orders for appointment of selected Nurses got compulsively eclipsed by the promulgation of Code of Conduct, a bright feature of Indian Republic. It is not a case where the appointments were held up by any other cause. That being so, the moment, the election process was over and need was felt for filling up the vacancies aforementioned, the competent Authority was duly bound to appoint those already selected by the Commission.” On the other hand, Sri M. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that when once the Supreme Court clarified the position that all selections made and admission granted in educational institutions prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court shall not be affected and similarly all appointments made prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the basis of reservation permitted by the Legislation which has been struck down by this Court, shall also not be affected and further clarified that no admission granted, appointment made or promotion granted subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be valid, the Tribunal rightly held that the action of the respondents is strictly in accordance with the rules and cannot be found fault with. Hence, the order of the Tribunal shall not be interfered with. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. We perused the impugned order. It is needless to mention that the order attained finality by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court used expression that the appointment made prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court on the basis of reservation permitted by the Legislation which has been struck down by the Supreme Court, shall not be affected. The Supreme Court further clarified that no admission granted, appointment made or promotion granted subsequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be valid. We cannot enlarge the scope of appointment so as to include the selection. It is settled preposition of law that mere selection in the selection list does not confer any right to seek any appointment and it is for the recruitment authority to select the candidate. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order much less there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal. The finding arrived at by the Tribunal is based on valid and cogent reasons and we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Dt. 11.02.2009 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commissioner, Grukhakalpa Complex, Nampally, Hyd. 2 The Prl., SEcretarya to Government of A.P., General Administration Dept., Secretarit, Hyd, 3 The Commisioner of Employment and Traning, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. 4. 2 CC to G.P. for Services-II , High Court of A.P. Hyderabad OUT. 5. 2 CD copies [1] 2007 (3) SERVICES LAW REPORTER 616