Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Filling Vacancies in Public Service: Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1105

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph

Can a candidate claim appointment to a government job based on their position in a merit list, even after the selection process has concluded and a selected candidate has not joined? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC). The core issue was whether the APPSC could appoint a candidate from an old merit list when a selected candidate did not join, or if the vacancy must be filled through a new recruitment process. The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph, who delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (the Commission) conducted a selection process for the post of Junior Lecturer in Mathematics. The results were published on 03 December 2011. Kota Lingeswara Rao (Respondent No. 1), an Open Category (OC) candidate, secured 380.50 marks. However, another OC candidate, Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar, secured 393.00 marks and was selected. The selection list was sent to the Unit Officers on 04 September 2012. Mr. Sagar did not join the post. Four years later, on 02 August 2016, Mr. Rao filed an application before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, seeking appointment to the vacancy created by Mr. Sagar’s non-joining. He argued that he was the next highest-scoring candidate on the merit list. The Tribunal dismissed his application due to delay. Mr. Rao then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which ruled in his favor, directing the Commission to appoint him. The Commission then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The A.P. Administrative Tribunal dismissed Mr. Rao’s application, citing delay and laches. The High Court, however, overturned the Tribunal’s decision and directed the Commission to appoint Mr. Rao, reasoning that the vacancy remained unfilled. This order was challenged by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of Rule 6 (amended) and Rule 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (APPSC Rules).

The unamended Rule 6 stated:

“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.”

The amended Rule 6 states:

“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 states:

“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.”

The unamended Rule 6 allowed the Commission to use the ranking list as a waiting list for one year. However, the amended Rule 6 explicitly states that the list of selected candidates should only match the number of vacancies, and any fallout vacancies should be filled in the next recruitment. Rule 7 allows a candidate to relinquish their claim, after which the Commission can select another candidate according to rules. The interplay of these rules is central to the case.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appellant):

• The amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules clearly states that the list of selected candidates should be equal to the number of vacancies.
• Any vacancies arising due to non-joining of selected candidates should be filled in the next recruitment process, not from the previous merit list.
• The system of maintaining a waiting list for one year, as per the unamended Rule 6, has been discontinued.
• The High Court erred in directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1, as it goes against the amended rules.
• Rule 7, which allows for selecting another candidate, must be read harmoniously with the amended Rule 6, meaning the selection must be as per the existing rules.

Arguments on behalf of Kota Lingeswara Rao (Respondent No. 1):

• Respondent No. 1 was the next highest-scoring candidate on the merit list after Mr. G.V. Ramakrishna Sagar.
• Since Mr. Sagar did not join, the vacancy should be filled by the next candidate on the merit list, i.e., Respondent No. 1.
• The High Court correctly directed the Commission to appoint him to the vacant post.

Innovation in the Arguments: The appellant’s argument innovatively focuses on the strict interpretation of the amended Rule 6, emphasizing that the waiting list system has been abolished. The respondent’s argument relies on a traditional understanding of merit lists and filling vacancies, but it does not address the changes brought about by the amended rules.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in directing the Commission to appoint Respondent No. 1 to the post of Junior Lecturer, given the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules, which specifies that fallout vacancies should be filled in the next recruitment.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (APPSC Rules): This rule, as amended, specifies that the list of selected candidates should only match the number of vacancies, and any fallout vacancies should be filled in the next recruitment.
• Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules: This rule allows a candidate to relinquish their claim for appointment, after which the Commission can select another candidate according to rules.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules (unamended): The Court acknowledged the existence of the unamended rule, which allowed for a waiting list system, but emphasized that this system was discontinued after the amendment.
• Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules (amended): The Court heavily relied on the amended Rule 6, stating that it clearly mandates that fallout vacancies should be filled in the next recruitment.
• Rule 7 of the APPSC Rules: The Court interpreted this rule to mean that any selection after a candidate relinquishes their claim must be done according to the rules in force at that time, which is the amended Rule 6.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear and unambiguous language of the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules. The Court emphasized that the rule explicitly states that fallout vacancies should be filled in the next recruitment process, thereby discontinuing the practice of using a waiting list from a previous selection. The Court also noted that the High Court had overlooked the amended rule while directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1. The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that Respondent No. 1 approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal after a significant delay of four years, which was considered a case of delay and laches.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected any alternative interpretations, stating that the amended Rule 6 was clear and unambiguous. The Court reasoned that if the intention was to continue with a waiting list system, the amended Rule 6 would not have been drafted as it is. The Court emphasized that the rules in force at the time of selection must be followed.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s decision to direct the appointment of Respondent No. 1 was incorrect. The Court stated that the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules clearly specifies that fallout vacancies should be filled in the next recruitment process. The Court also noted that the Respondent No. 1 had approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal after a delay of four years, which should have been a ground for dismissal. The Court emphasized the importance of following the rules in force at the time of selection.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “The fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.”
• “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.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench comprised of two judges, both of whom agreed with the final decision.

Key Takeaways

• The amended Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure (APPSC Rules) does not allow for the creation of a waiting list.
• Vacancies arising due to non-joining or relinquishment of selected candidates must be filled through the next recruitment process.
• Candidates cannot claim appointment based on their position in an old merit list if the rules have been amended to abolish the waiting list system.
• Courts should strictly interpret and apply the rules in force at the time of selection.
• Delay and laches can be a valid ground for dismissing a claim for appointment.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and allowed the appeal of the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that amended rules governing the selection process must be strictly followed, and any previous practices or interpretations that are inconsistent with the amended rules must be disregarded. This case clarifies that the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules has abolished the practice of using a waiting list from previous selections and mandates that vacancies must be filled through the next recruitment process. This is a change from the previous position of law, where waiting lists were often used to fill vacancies arising from non-joining of selected candidates.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao & Ors. clarifies the rules for filling vacancies in public service. The Court emphasized that the amended Rule 6 of the APPSC Rules must be strictly followed, meaning that vacancies arising from non-joining of selected candidates must be filled through the next recruitment process, not from previous merit lists. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to the rules in force at the time of selection and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.