IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No: 3682 of 2000 BETWEEN: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission. ... PETITIONER AND D.B.K. Kumar Singh and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. VIJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: MR. J.R. MANOHAR RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) is the petitioner in this writ petition. The first respondent Sri D.B.K. Kumar Singh, filed O.A.No.919 of 1994 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the Commission to allot him to Zone-II for appointment either as Assistant Labour Officer or Mandal Revenue Officer (Deputy Tahsildar) according to his option and rankings by holding the action of the Commission in allotting him to Zone-I as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The parties herein are referred to as they are referred before the tribunal. 3. It is the case of the applicant that pursuant to the notification issued by the Commission in the year 1985 for selection to Group-A Services, the applicant, who was a native of West Godavari District, belonging to Zone-II appeared for the examination and he was called for the interview but he was not selected. It is stated that some of the selected candidates have not joined the services and therefore, those unfilled vacancies were sought to be filled up from the waiting list. The Commission issued a memorandum dated 04.10.1993 informing the applicant that he was selected for appointment to the post of Assistant Labour Officer, which is his second preference after ACTO and third preference being MRO (Dy. Tahsildar). He was directed to contact the Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad for order of appointment. However, when the applicant contacted the Commissioner, he was informed that there is no vacancy in Zone-II as the earlier vacancy caused due to the non-joining of one D. Vivekanand was already adjusted in favour of one T. Venkataratnam pursuant to the directions of the tribunal in O.A.No.29202 of 1990 and therefore, the Unit Officer surrendered the applicant for want of vacancy in Zone-II and requested the Commission to allot the applicant some other zone. He was also informed that the post of Assistant Labour Officer is vacant in Zone-I due to deletion of one S.T.P. Raghavulu and accordingly, the applicant was proposed in the said vacancy as Assistant Labour Officer in Zone-I as non-local with reference to his rank and option for posts and zones vide letter of the Commission dated 22.12.1993 directing the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam to issue appointment orders to the applicant. Accordingly, the appointment orders were issued and the applicant reported for duty on 02.03.1994. Even before reporting to duty, the applicant made a representation dated 01.02.1994 followed by another dated 10.02.1994 to consider him to the post of his next choice i.e. MRO in Zone-II but the same could not be considered in view of the fact that a candidate for selection had to be considered in accordance with the option exercised in order of preference to the posts. 4. It is not in dispute that the applicant belongs to Zone-II and in fact, he was originally allotted to Zone-II only but as the vacancy was adjusted as per the orders of the tribunal, the applicant was surrendered to the Commission and the Commission directed for his posting as Assistant Labour Officer in Zone-I as a non-local candidate. The tribunal held that the action taken by the commission is not in accordance with the option exercised by the applicant for his posting in Zone-II and because of the wrong approach of the officers, the applicant could not get any post of his choice in Zone-II and he was erroneously allotted to Zone-I, but he did not join and filed the OA. Accordingly, the tribunal directed for consideration of the case of the applicant for selection and posting in Zone-II as local candidate in accordance with the option exercised by him in the existing vacancies as per the selection made by the commission as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months. 5. It is not in dispute that, in fact, the applicant joined as Assistant Labour Officer on 02.03.1994 in Zone-I as no interim order was passed by the tribunal and he relinquished the said post with a permission to continue to work as a Lecturer. Thus, he is not working either in Zone-I or Zone-II. Admittedly, during the pendency of OA before the tribunal, there was no stay and this Court granted interim suspension of the order of the tribunal by order 24.07.2000. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the selection the commission will select the candidate giving preference to the option given by the candidate and if the preferred post is not available in their native zone, the candidate would be considered for the preferred post in some other zone as non-local candidate subject to following the rule of reservation and the presidential order. It is stated that the applicant admittedly, has exercised his option of preference for the posts as follows: (1) ACTO, (2) Assistant Labour Officer, (3) MRO (Dy. Tahsildar), (4) MPL Commissioner Gr.III etc. Admittedly, the applicant could not be selected even in the non-joining post of ACTO and he was referred to the post of Assistant Labour Officer in Zone-II but as that post was not available, taking into consideration his option of preference, he was posted as Assistant Labour Officer in Zone-I as a non- local candidate. 7. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the option exercised by the applicant as per his preference to the post is Zone-II alone and therefore, he could have been considered as per next option to the post of MRO (Deputy Tahsildar) in Zone-II instead of sending him to Zone-I. It is, further, stated that the same principle as is applicable for the selection must be applied for the candidates, who are sought to be considered in the non-joining post when the waiting list is operated. 8. The applicant was considered in the fall out vacancies as per his preferred option for the post of ACTO as his first preference and he did not come up to the selection for the post of ACTO and he was considered for the second post opted i.e. Assistant Labour Officer, but inadvertently, the Commissioner of Labour allotted him to Zone-II, by that time the post was filled up by another candidate pursuant to the orders of the tribunal. Thereafter, the applicant was allotted to Zone-I as non-local candidate to the post of Assistant Labour Officer as per his preference to the post and preference to the Zone. We are of the opinion that the candidates cannot be considered for the post of the next choice unless they qualify for the post preferred. In the instant case, for reasons whatsoever, the applicant opted Zone-II in the next preferred post, but in general, the candidates will be willing to work in any zone as per their preferred post only. The commission follows the principle of allotment and posting of candidates in accordance with the preference to the posts which they have given but not in accordance with the zones. Therefore, the preference to the post is the primary criteria, which has been adhered to by the commission. The policy with regard to allotment and posting followed by the commission is uniform whether it is for the original selections or for left over selections and therefore, it cannot be said that the applicant is entitled to be posted in the same zone for the next preferred post. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent/applicant that the applicant is entitled to be posted as MRO (Dy. Tahsildar) in Zone-II. We are of the opinion that the commission rightly posted him to Zone-I as Assistant Labour Officer as per the preference exercised by the applicant. Therefore, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside. 9. It is further noticed that after recruitment relating to 1985 with which we are concerned, it was closed long back and the next group of recruitment was completed in 1990 and recruitment to Group-II notification was issued in 1999 and by now several more recruitment notifications might have been issued. In view of that and in view of the fact that the first respondent is not working either in Zone-I or Zone-II, the tribunal ought not to have allowed the OA under order impugned. For the aforesaid reasons, we set aside the order of the tribunal in OA.No.919 of 1994 and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 24, 2009 DSK