A.P.Public Service Commission vs Baloji Badhavath & Ors

Relaxation of age was granted for the SC/ST and BCs candidates by five years. The reserved categories of candidates were exempted from payment of fees.

10. Respondents herein appeared at the said preliminary examination without any demur whatsoever. They, however, having not been shortlisted filed an original application before the Andhra Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal. The said original application was dismissed.

11. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, they filed a writ petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court which by reason of the impugned judgment has been allowed. The Commission was impleaded as a party in the writ petition.

(viii) The High Court having declared the GOMs No. 570 as unconstitutional and the State having not preferred any special 14 leave petition thereagainst, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission cannot be said to have any locus standi to maintain this appeal.

25. Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of General Studies and Mental Ability. Such a test must be held to be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned.

The said observation was made keeping in view the concept of justice. By reason of providing for a preliminary examination, the right of the reserved category candidates has not been taken away. The means cannot be allowed to defeat the ends which the constitutional scheme seeks to achieve.

The said observations, in our opinion, have no application to the fact of the present case.

38. As we have entered into the merit of the matter, in our opinion, it is not necessary to determine the question as to whether the writ petitioners - 33 respondents having appeared in the examination were estopped and precluded from filing the writ petition.

40. So far as the question of locus standi of the appellant to file this Special Leave Petition is concerned, we are of the opinion that it has the locus standi. The High Court not only has set aside the GOMs dated 31.12.1997 but it has also set aside the notification dated 27.12.2007. If the High Court's judgment is to be implemented, a fresh selection procedure has to be undertaken by the appellant. Furthermore, in terms of Order 41, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court, in the event, finds merit in the appeal at the instance of one of the respondents may set aside the entire judgment although another respondent had not appealed thereagainst.

41. The Commission had undertaken the task of holding preliminary examination. It had followed the procedure laid down in its notification issued in this behalf and the GOMs issued by the State. It, therefore, could maintain a writ petition.

No exception to the rule can be taken. We are not, however, dealing with the election petition. We are dealing with a rule laid down by a constitutional authority as also the State.

44. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

April 08, 2009