Service Law: Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012 – r.16(5) – Selection process for recruitment of teachers – Appellant participated in the selection process and was placed at 34 th position – Respondents declared that the candidates upto serial no. 33 (notified vacanices) in the merit list are selected in the available vacancies and accordingly invited the 33 candidates to appear for counselling – One candidate did not turn up for counselling – Consequently, one post in general category remained unfilled due to non-participation of the said candidate – Appellant sought consideration of his candidature which was declined – Tribunal allowed O.A. filed by appellant which decision was reversed by High Court – Hence instant appeal – Held: As per sub-rule (5) of r.16, the number of candidates selected shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified – It also specifically provides that there shall be no waiting list and posts, if any, unfilled for any reason whatsoever, shall be carried forward for future recruitment – The final selection list of
33 candidates was prepared. Thereafter all the selected candidates were called for counselling, but one of the candidates did not report for counselling – Therefore, said event took place after the final selection list was prepared and published – As there was no requirement of preparation of a waiting list, the appellant claiming to be the next in the merit cannot claim any appointment as his name neither figured in the list of the selected candidates nor in any waiting list as there was no provision at all for preparation of the waiting list – Sub-rule(5) of r.16 is very clear – Therefore, the post remained unfilled and that post has to be carried forward for the next recruitment – High Court was correct in reversing the order of Tribunal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. On a fair reading of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 read with the Guidelines once the final selection list is prepared, there shall be no waiting list and posts, if any, are unfilled for any reason whatsoever, shall be carried forward for future recruitment as per sub-Rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012. In the present case, the final selection list of 33 candidates was prepared. Thereafter all the selected candidates were called for counselling, but one of the candidates did not report for counselling. The aforesaid event took place after the final selection list was prepared and published. As there was no requirement of preparation of a waiting list, the appellant claiming to be the next in the merit cannot claim any appointment as his name neither figured in the list of the selected candidates nor in any waiting list as there was no provision at all for preparation of the waiting list. [Paras 7.3, 7.4][1090-A-C]
2. The appellant could have claimed the appointment to the post which remained unfilled provided there is a provision for waiting list as per the statutory provision. In absence of any specific provision for waiting list and on the contrary, there being a specific provision that there shall not be any waiting list and that the post remaining unfilled on any ground shall have to be carried forward for the next recruitment. The appellant, thus, had no right to claim any appointment to the post which remained unfilled. [Para 7.5][1090-D-F]
3. Now, the submission on behalf of the appellant that as per sub-rule(5) of Rule 16, all the 33 posts notified are required to be filled is concerned, the same has no substance. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 is required to be read as a whole and in its entirety and the same is required to be read alongwith the Guidelines issued. What is provided under sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 is that the number of candidates selected shall not be more than the number of vacancies notified. However, it further provides that there shall be no waiting list and posts, if any, unfilled for any reason whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment. Therefore, there shall not be any appointment of more than the number of vacancies notified but that does not mean to prepare and operate the waiting list, which otherwise is specifically not provided for under the Rules, 2012. [Para 8][1090-H; 1091-A-C] Bihar State Electricity Board v. Suresh Prasad & Ors., (2004) 2 SCC 681; State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department and Ors. v. Samiula Shareef and Ors., 2014 (1) ALT 165 DB – relied on.
4. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Suresh Prasad and Ors. to the facts of the case on hand and considering the statutory provisions contained in Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012 read with the Guidelines, the appellant cannot claim appointment on the unfilled vacancy being next below the candidate in the merit list. If the submission on behalf of the appellant is accepted, in that case, it will lead to providing for preparation of a waiting list, which otherwise is not permissible as per sub-rule (5) of Rule 16. If the same is permitted, in that case, it will be directing the respondents to act contrary to the statutory provisions. Therefore, the High Court has not committed any error in refusing to appoint the appellant to the post which remained unfilled due to one of the selected candidates in the final selection list not appearing for counselling. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is absolutely in consonance with the relevant statutory provisions. [Para 9][1091-E-H]
District Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District Selection Committee, Nizamabad & Ors. v. B. Annapurna Writ Petition No. 21306 of 2005 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.