LexA. P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus PRASADA RAO AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 2 S.C.R. 1167 AP. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. PRASADA RAO AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2043-2046 of 201 O ) FEBRUARY 25, 2010 [V.S. SIRPURKAR AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] A B Service Law - Selection - Select list prepared.by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission - Directions issued by C Tribunal, affirmed by High Court - On appeal, said directions suitably modified by Supreme Court. Dispute arose with regard to the select list prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, and 0 certain directions were issued by the Tribunal, which were affirmed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD:1. There is force in the argument that the directions issued by the Tribunal which are also affirmed by the High Court would create complications and therefore in modification of the orders passed by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, it is directed: E F (i) That the select list which was prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission pursuant to the judgment and order of this Court dated 14.09.2006 in Civil Appeal No. G 4129 of 2006 and which is contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission is restored and that appointment shall be given effect to by the competent 1167 H -A B c D E. F G H 1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. authority in terms of the seniority position ascribed in the said select list as contained in the official records of the Public Service Commission but subject to the condition that all those candidates who are shown to have been selected for the post mentioned in the select list as prepared by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and amongst them, who have pursuant to the same joined their posts be given an option either to retain their existing position and post to which they were selected pursuant to the notification No. 5/1998 for Group-I services or to opt for a new post now being offered pursu.ant to this order; (ii) That such a candidate shall be ordered to exercise his option within a time frame as stipulated by the Public Service Commission. The Commission would thereafter act in accordance with the rules and in accordance with the law in terms of the aforesaid option so exercised and give effect to the same. It is also made clear that no option is required to be called for or obtained from the candidates who are being given offer of appointment for the first time pursuant to the selection and in accordance with the merit position in the select list which has already been prepared; and (iii) That after giving effect to the selection in terms of clauses (i) and (ii) above, the vacancies, if any, would then be filled up by the candidates from the select list/merit list in accordance with their merit and rules of reservation as per the options given earlier or by giving similar A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. PRASADA 1169 RAO AND ORS. option to the candidates selected and working A in some other post. [Para 3] [1169-H; 1170-A- H; 1171-A-B] 1.2. The selected candidates who are being appointed for the first time would only be entitled to give 8 fresh option and the candidates who had already exercised their option would not be entitled to give any fresh option. [Para 4] [1171-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2043-2046 of 2010. C From the Judgment & Order dated 8.10. 2007 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Wirt Nos. 17397, 17398, 17399 and 17 400 of 2007. WITH C.A. No. 2047 of 2010. Altaf Ahmad, R. Sundervardhan, Shyam Divan, H.S. D Gururaja Rao, Guntur Prabhakar, Y. Rajagopala Rao, Y. E Ramesh, Y. lsmai Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan, Praveen K. Pandey (for D. Mahesh Babu), 0. Bharathi Reddy, Anuradha Rustogi, G.V.R. Choudhary K. Shivraj Chaudhuri, Y. Ramesh, Y. Vismai Rao, C.S.N. Mohan Rao, Satish Galla, N. Rajaraman for the appea~in parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted. F 2. Having heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals G could be disposed of by a common judgment and order as the facts of these appeals are similar. 3. We find force in the arguments of some of the counsel 1 appearing for the parties that the directions issued by the H/ 1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 2 S.C.R. A Tribunal which are also affirmed by the High Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.