Case: ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. KOTA LINGESWARA RAO &amp; ORS

join duty, and allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, directing the Commission to appoint Respondent No.1 to the said post.4. Heard Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Commission and Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for both the parties have taken us through the material on record and the concerned rules.5. It is relevant to note that Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules was amended on 22.02.1997 and a notification was issued for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics on 26.11.2008. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the unamended and amended Rule 6 as well as Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules:?Rule -6 (Prior to amendment)- The ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date of which the selection list is published on the Notice Board of the Commissioner or till the publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier. The Commission may select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within the time given and also new requisitions (sent by appointing authorities). However, the Commission shall have the right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded.Rule 6: (After amendment) - The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/categories notified by the Unit Officers Government. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.Rule 7: Any candidate whose name has been included in a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the Commission, on enquiry by the Commission, may relinquish his claim for appointment in writing in the Proforma prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall there Upon remove the name of such candidate from the selection list and select any other candidate according to rules. The candidate whose name has been so removed from the selection list shall be informed of such removal by the Commission and shall have no right for the said appointment in future with reference to the said selection.? 6. The unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules stated that the ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment would remain in force for a period of one year from the date of publication of the selection list, or till the publication of the new selection list, whichever was earlier. It further provided that it would be open for the Commission to select the candidates from the ranking list in place of those who relinquished the selection or who did not join duty within the time given. Thus, the ranking list would in effect function as a waiting list for one year (maximum). After the amendment of Rule 6, such waiting period has been given a go by. The amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules specifies that the list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies. It further specifies that the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and nonjoining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment, clearly indicating that the process of issuance of waiting list has been discontinued.7. Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules further makes it clear that in case a candidate relinquishes his claim for appointment in writing, the Commission shall remove the name of such candidate from the selection list and select any other candidate according to the Rules. Thus, it is clarified in Rule 7 that selection must be as per the existing Rules.8. In the matter on hand, Respondent No. 1, as mentioned supra, approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for appointment four years after the date of relinquishment of the post by Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar. Firstly, he has to be non-suited due to delay and laches. Secondly, even on merits, we do not find any ground to show leniency in favour of Respondent No.1 inasmuch as the selection, if made in favour of Respondent No. 1, would go against the Rules.9. As discussed above, after the amendment of Rule 6, the system of a waiting list remaining in force for a period of one year has been done away with. The Rule also makes it clear that the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of the selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. Hence, the Commission does not have the power to invite the next selected candidate if the last selected candidate does not opt to join the post, and must publish the vacant post in the next recruitment only. In view of the same, Respondent No. 1 being a non-selected candidate, cannot urge the Commission to select him based on the unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules. He is bound by the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, inasmuch as Rule 6 was amended on 22.02.1997.10. In view of the specific mandate of the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in granting relief in favour of Respondent No. 1 ignoring amended Rule 6. Both the Rules i.e. Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 have to be read harmoniously. Rule 7 will sub-serve the intention of the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, since it specifically mentions that selection of a new candidate, after relinquishment of a post by another candidate, shall be done in accordance with the rules, which would mean the rules in force at that time. Furthermore, it has also been brought to our notice that the Commission deleted Rule 7 by G.P. Ms. No. 139 on 28.07.2016, having found that the said rule, to a certain extent, was creating confusion in the selection process.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. In the matter on hand, Respondent No. 1, as mentioned supra, approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal for appointment four years after the date of relinquishment of the post by Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar. Firstly, he has to be non-suited due to delay and laches. Secondly, even on merits, we do not find any ground to show leniency in favour of Respondent No.1 inasmuch as the selection, if made in favour of Respondent No. 1, would go against the Rules9. As discussed above, after the amendment of Rule 6, the system of a waiting list remaining in force for a period of one year has been done away with. The Rule also makes it clear that the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of the selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. Hence, the Commission does not have the power to invite the next selected candidate if the last selected candidate does not opt to join the post, and must publish the vacant post in the next recruitment only. In view of the same, Respondent No. 1 being a non-selected candidate, cannot urge the Commission to select him based on the unamended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules. He is bound by the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, inasmuch as Rule 6 was amended on 22.02.199710. In view of the specific mandate of the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, in our considered opinion, the High Court was not justified in granting relief in favour of Respondent No. 1 ignoring amended Rule 6. Both the Rules i.e. Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 have to be read harmoniously. Rule 7 will sub-serve the intention of the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, since it specifically mentions that selection of a new candidate, after relinquishment of a post by another candidate, shall be done in accordance with the rules, which would mean the rules in force at that time. Furthermore, it has also been brought to our notice that the Commission deleted Rule 7 by G.P. Ms. No. 139 on 28.07.2016, having found that the said rule, to a certain extent, was creating confusion in the selection process.