HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No : 8158 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order, dated 23.12.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in Rev.M.A.No. 4024 of 2009 in O.A.No. 2683 of 2007. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, ‘the APPSC’) issued a notification dated 28.12.1999 vide Advertisement No. 10 of 1999 for recruitment to various posts categorized under Group II Services, comprises of selection to 10 categories of posts in Executive and 17 categories of posts in non-executive cadres. According to the notification, 104 vacancies in three categories of posts in executive and 141 vacancies of Assistant Section Officers in non-executive cadres arising during the recruitment year ending by 31.08.2000 will be taken into consideration for selection. Under Note 1 PARA 1 of the notification, it is made clear that the vacancies for the posts indicated as ‘awaited’ are the vacancies that may be reported after this Notification is issued and the candidates who are desirous of applying for such posts to which vacancies have not been reported may do so in anticipation of vacancies and for the purpose of reckoning vacancies for this recruitment, the vacancies arising during the recruitment year ending by 31.08.2000 will be taken into consideration. Apart from that, the Government has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 81, G.A.(Sec.A) Department, dated 22.02.1997 rendering the ranking list of the recruitment inoperative after the date of selection and directed therein that the consequential unfilled vacancies have to be carried forward and notified in the next recruitment. The APPSC therefore finalized the selection on 22.12.2000 and 22.02.2002 for the executive and non-executive posts respectively for the notified vacancies. Some of the candidates filed O.As. alleging that vacancies were not properly assessed and sought for a direction to fill up the vacancies available up to 30.08.2000 and the same were disposed of. Since the candidates did not get any positive order, they filed Writ Petitions No. 2868 of 2002 and batch, which was allowed with a direction to the Government to assess and report the vacancies up to 30.08.2000 and fill them for this recruitment and that the entire exercise in that regard should be completed within a period of six months. In compliance with the above-said direction, the Government reported additional vacancies of 973 in executive and 199 in non-executive cadres on 06.10.2003 to be filled up from this recruitment. Since these vacancies were reported after completion of the selection process, the APPSC sought for a clarification from this Court, which, in turn, made it clear that no clarification is needed and emphasized that only one merit list be prepared. Therefore, the APPSC had no option except to cancel the earlier selection and re do the same by taking the total vacancies received in two spells and fill them from a common ranking list after interviewing more candidates. The procedure of selection on non-locals as revised in G.O.No. 124, dated 07.03.2002 was followed. The selection list dated 31.05.2004 was challenged on various grounds, including the relevance of G.O.No.124 to the present selection. Insofar as the latter aspect is concerned, this Court was of the considered view that the revised procedure was not in force when the first selection was made and hence, it has directed to confine the selection to the vacancies received in second spell without disturbing the initial selection. The APPSC complied with the said orders and finalized the selection on 15.02.2005 making it clear that in view of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 81, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 22.02.1997, the recruitment has been finally concluded for the Executive posts notified under this recruitment and the consequential vacancies will be carried forward to the next recruitment. As the matter stood thus, O.A.Nos. 3067 of 2004 and batch filed disputing the vacancy position was disposed of on 21.10.2005 with a direction to the respondents to fill up all the vacancies pertaining to this recruitment particularly in the cadre of 1) Deputy Tahasildar, 2)Excise Sub-Inspector, 3) Executive Officer (P.R.), 4) Extension Officer (R.D.). O.A.No. 2683 of 2007 which was filed seeking to fill up additional vacancies was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.10.2009 holding that the entire process of selection was completed by 2005 and as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam[1], the vacancies reported after completion of selection are meant for next recruitment but not for the recruitment that was already completed. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 8 and 9 herein sought review of the said orders on the ground that the case of Mukul Saikia relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal while reviewing its earlier order, passed an order dated 23.12.2009 to the effect that the APPSC is directed to fill up all the vacancies that arose up to 30.08.2000 in Group II Services pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 1999 in the categories of Deputy Tahasildars, Excise Sub- Inspectors, Executive Officers, Extension Officers, etc and consider the cases of the applicants therein for appointment to the said posts as per their merit in the concerned zones in terms of the judgment in O.A.No. 3067 of 2004 and batch, dated 21.10.2005 and issue appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Hence, the APPSC has filed this Writ Petition. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the APPSC contends that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the Commission in September 2006 to fill those vacancies reported long after conclusion of the recruitment, dated 15.02.2005. He further contends that the Tribunal has failed to consider the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No. 81, dated 22.02.1997 dispensing with the system of waiting list due to which the consequential and additional vacancies, if any, shall be notified in the next recruitment. The learned Standing Counsel relies upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Sureender Singh v. State of Punjab[2], and submits that the list does not furnish a source of recruitment for infinite stock of appointments and that the candidates in the waiting list are not liable to be appointed on the ground that the vacancies were not properly worked out. According to the learned Standing Counsel, when once a notification was issued notifying some vacancies, at a later point of time, the Government cannot direct the Commission to fill some more vacancies by the said notification, which itself will become an unending process. To appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the APPSC, we have requested to produce the notification, a perusal of which makes it clear that the vacancies arising during the recruitment year ending by 31.08.2000 will be taken into consideration. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for Respondents 8 and 9 relied upon the judgment in A.P. Public Service Commission v. P. Chandra Mouleesware Reddy[3] and contends that when the APPSC notified certain posts to be filled up and the Government by mistake directed PSC to send recommendations for reduced number of vacancies, candidates who had applied in response to such advertisement and appeared in written test and interview cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of the Government. From a perusal of the order impugned and the material papers available on record, it is clear that in the notification itself, the APPSC mentioned that the vacancies which were shown as awaited are the one which would be available after issuing the notification and the candidates who are desirous of applying for the said posts may do so in anticipation of vacancies and for the purpose of reckoning the vacancies for this recruitment, the vacancies arising during the recruitment year ending by 31.08.2000 will be taken into consideration. But however, the APPSC filled up only some posts and did not fill up the remaining vacancies. Aggrieved by the action of the APPSC, some of the candidates approached the Tribunal as well as the High Court. Based on the directions issued by the Tribunal, the Government accepted to fill up the vacancies in the category of Deputy Tahasildars and Excise Sub-Inspectors, etc. that are available as on 31.08.2000 and directed the APPSC to fill up all the vacancies in Group II Services pursuant to Advertisement No. 10 of 1999 in the cadres of Deputy Tahasildars, Executive Officers, Extension Officers and consider the claims of Respondents 8 and 9 herein, if they come within the zone of consideration. In that view of the matter, the APPSC, being the recruiting agency, now cannot refuse to fill up the vacancies stating that the recruitment is over and it cannot undertake the selection pursuant to Notification No. 10 of 1999. When it has notified certain vacancies arising for the recruitment year ending with 31.08.2000, the same have to be filled up with the eligible candidates. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited judgments and in view of the reasons stated supra, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its jurisdiction and no interference is warranted in the order impugned. The Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ------------------------------ (G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 26th April 2010 ksld [1] 2009(1) SCC 386 [2] 1997 (8) SCC 488 [3] (2006) 8 SCC 330