ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus P. CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 181 · Decided: 14-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
A
v.
P. CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
[S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.]
B
Service law:
Recruitment-Advertisement for nineteen posts of Deputy Superintendent
of Police-Selection process by Public Service Commission-Recommendation C
of only 10 posts out of the 19 in compliance with direction of the State
Government-Act of the Commission challenged-Tribunal directing
recruitment of the remaining 9 posts, finding that the direction by the State
was a mistake-High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article
226-0n appeal, held: Order of Tribunal was justified -High Court rightly D
refused to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226-If the State had no
objection to fill the post realizing its mistake, it was not proper for the
Commission to challenge the order of Tribunal only because it will have to
undertake the selection process again-Pu!Jlic Service Commission Rules-
Ru/e 6-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226.
Appellant-Commission advertised nineteen posts of Deputy
Superintendent of Police. Respondent Nos. 1-3 applied for the same. After
E
the selection process was over, the State Government asked the
Commission to send recommendation for only ten vacancies in the said
category for the purpose of direct recruitment, which was complied with F
by the Commission. The same was challenged by the respondents. The
State Administrative Tribunal found that, it was a mistake on the part of
the State to issue the direction, and directed the Commission to make
recruitment from the selection list to the rest of nine posts out of the
nineteen posts. In Writ Petition High Court upheld the judgment of the
Tribunal. Hence the present appeal.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: I. The State Government did not question the order of the
Tribunal. The Commission was required to carry out fresh exercise in
181
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A compliance of the directions of the Tribunal. For the said purpose, no fresh
selection process was to be undertaken. If the State did not have any
objection to fill up the said posts realizing the mistake committed by it,
there is no reason for the Commission to feel aggrieved by the order of
the Tribunal. Commission should follow the instructions of the State,
provided the same is in accordance with rules. Although a mistake had
B been committed by the State, the same cannot be directed to be perpetrated
only because the Commission will have to undertake the selection process
again and particularly, in view of the fact that the State Government did
not question the order passed by the Tribunal. (186-F; 188-3, El
C
Virender S. Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr., (1999) 3 SCC
693, relied on.
2. The candidates should not suffer owing to a mistake on the part
of the State. The Tribunal directed the Commission to notify the remaining
nine candidates in the merit order following the 'Rule of Reservation'. It
D was categorically stated that those who would be appointed in terms
thereof would be able to claim any right only with prospective effect, i.e.,
from the date of their actual joining of service. It, therefore, cannot be
said that the order of the Tribunal was in any manner unjustified,
arbitrary or unreasonable. To take a technical view so as to deprive the
E
candidate of his right would be unjust. The High Court rightly refused to
exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(187-F-GI
Ms. Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Ors., ( 1986] 4 SCC 268;
S.L. Kaul and Ors. v. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting, New Delhi and Ors., (1989( Supp.I SCC 147,
F relied on.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4I29 of2006.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.7.2005 of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 6729/2005.
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellant.
P.P. Roa, L.N. Rao, R. Santhan Krishnan. K. Radha Rani, Praveen K.
Pandey, P. Vijay Kumar, C.S.N. Mohan Rao aw1 D. Mahesh Babu for the
Respondents.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION>'. P. CHANDRA MOULEESWARE REDDY (S.B SINHA. J.] J 8)
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
A
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short, 'the
Commission') is in appeal before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.