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

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that a written test and oral test were conducted for selection to the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics, and results were published by the appellant herein, the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (?the Commission?) on 03.12.2011. Respondent No.1, who belongs to the Open Category (?OC?), secured 380.50 marks, whereas one Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar (the last selected candidate in the OC in Zone-III) secured 393.00 marks. Consequently, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar was declared selected. The selection was finalized and the same was sent to the Unit Officers on 04.09.2012. However, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar chose not to join the post. Respondent No. 1 herein, after waiting for four years, filed Original Application No. 3142 of 2016 before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal on 02.08.2016, claiming appointment in the vacancy created due to non-joining of Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar, since he was the candidate with the next highest marks in the select merit list. The said Original Application No. 3142 of 2016 was dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Being aggrieved by the same, Respondent No. 1 carried the matter before the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 3695 of 2018. The High Court vide the impugned judgment found that the vacancy for the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics had not been filled up since the last OC candidate did not join duty, and allowed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, directing the Commission to appoint Respondent No.1 to the said post.

Court's reasoning:
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.