The legal analysis in this case centers on the interpretation of appointment rules without a waiting list provision. The Court scrutinizes the application of Rule 16(5) and Rule 8(g) in determining appointments to unfilled vacancies. The implications of these rules are crucial in understanding the decision-making process in such cases. Let’s dive into the nuances of the Court’s legal analysis and the significance it holds in the realm of appointment procedures.
Facts
- Appellant filed Original Application (O.A.) No. 4916 of 2013 before A.P. Administrative Tribunal for appointment.
- Post in general category remained unfilled due to non-participation of a candidate.
- No waiting list was provided, and unfilled posts were to be carried forward for future recruitment.
- Tribunal allowed O.A. citing appellant’s entitlement as per guidelines issued under G.O. Ms. No 91 dated 03.11.2012.
- State filed a writ petition against Tribunal’s order in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amravati.
- High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the Tribunal’s order.
- Original applicant appealed against High Court’s judgment.
- Candidates up to serial No. 33 in the merit list are being selected for available vacancies.
- The 33 candidates have been invited to appear for counseling.
- The selection process is based on the merit list up to serial No. 33.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Issue
- The appellant participated in the recruitment process for Teachers under the DSC-2012 Notification.
- 33 vacancies were notified for recruitment.
- The recruitment process was governed by the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012.
- Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 provided for the preparation of selection lists.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Arguments
- Appellant approached the Tribunal seeking appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher in an unfilled vacancy.
- 33 posts were notified, selection process not complete until all 33 posts filled.
- Appellant, at 34th position on merit, entitled to appointment for unfilled vacancy.
- Representation made citing Guidelines seeking consideration for candidature.
- Procedure for verification and final selection list outlined in Rules 8.
- Samiula Shareef case judgment distinguished from present case.
- Tribunal’s decision to allow the O.A. was correct and reasoned.
- Rule 16(5) limits selected candidates to number of vacancies notified.
- No waiting list provided in Rule, vacancies due to other reasons carried forward.
- High Court erred in relying solely on Samiula Shareef case to quash Tribunal’s order.
- The respondent, represented by Shri Nazki, points to the decision in Bihar State Electricity Board Vs. Suresh Prasad & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681.
- It is argued that in cases where the Rules do not include a waiting list provision, a waitlisted candidate cannot be appointed if a selected candidate does not join.
- The respondent relies on Rule 8(g) which does not allow for a waiting list.
- The appellant, being next in line at Serial No 34, is seeking appointment to the unfilled post due to a selected candidate not appearing for counselling.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Analysis
- Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 16 states that the number of candidates selected should not exceed the number of vacancies notified.
- There will be no waiting list, and any unfilled posts will be carried forward for future recruitment.
- Guidelines from the State Government, specifically G.O. Ms. No 91 dated 03.11.2012, outline the selection process, including the preparation of selection lists and verification of certificates.
- Paragraph 8 of the Guidelines addresses the verification of certificates, with the District Educational Officer responsible for preparing a provisional list based on merit for each category of post notified in DSC – 2012.
- Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 and the Guidelines dictate that once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list.
- Unfilled posts are to be carried forward for future recruitment as per sub-Rule (5) of Rule 16.
- The appellant had no right to claim appointment to a post that remained unfilled.
- Verification of certificates may result in candidates failing to attend or produce necessary documents.
- In such cases, the District Selection Committee redraws the provisional list as needed.
- Candidates failing to attend verification forfeit their selection rights.
- The District Selection Committee must prepare the final selection list for all teacher categories.
- The post remaining unfilled due to a candidate not appearing for counseling must be carried forward for the next recruitment.
- There is no provision for a waiting list as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 16.
- The appellant cannot claim appointment as his name was not in the selected or waiting list.
- In the case of Suresh Prasad and Ors., it was observed that the employer is not obligated to offer unfilled vacancies to candidates next in merit list.
- The employer is not required to prepare a waiting list or appoint candidates from it if the selected candidates do not join.
- Applying this principle to the current case and considering Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 along with the Guidelines, the appellant cannot claim appointment on the unfilled vacancy based on being next in the merit list.
- The High Court did not err in refusing to appoint the appellant to the unfilled post.
- The refusal was due to a selected candidate not appearing for counselling.
- Appointing the appellant would have gone against statutory provisions.
- The High Court’s decision aligns with relevant statutory provisions.
Decision
- No order as to costs based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
- The present appeal is considered to have failed and is dismissed.
Case Title: VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (2022 INSC 443)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002473-002473 / 2022
