B. AMRUTHA LAKSHMI versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2013] 9 S.C.R. 1083 · Decided: 18-10-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 9 S.C.R. 1083 
B. AMRUTHA LAKSHMI 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9193 of 2013 etc.) 
OCTOBER 18, 2013 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
IND/AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (APPOINTMENT 
BY SELECTION) REGULATIONS, 1997: 
Regulation 4 rlw Regulation 3 - Selection to I.A. S. under 
non-State Civil Services category for the year 2011 - State 
Government to send proposals for consideration of Committee 
A 
B 
c 
- Held: Names of officers from the cadre of Assistant 
Commission~r of Commercial Taxes and above, who were of D 
outstanding merit and were eligible, were to be forwarded, but 
names which were sent for consideration were, only of Joint 
Commissioners and Additional Commissioners and not 
Assistant Commissioners -- Appellants were very much 
eligible for being considered, and there were so many similar E 
eligible candidates -- Once a candidate comes into the zone 
of consideration, and satisfies all the requirements, including 
that of outstanding merit and ability, he cannot be told that 
merely because he is junior in the seniority, his name will not 
F 
be forwarded for consideration -- When there is a criteria laid 
down for selection, Administration has to confine to the same, 
and it cannot impose an additional criterion, as it will mean 
treating similarly situated employees dissimilarly, and 
denying equal opportunity to some of them in the matter of 
public employment on the basis of a criterion which is not laid 
down, resulting into violation of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the 
G 
Constitution -- The decision of respondents not to consider 
appellants for selection was violative of Art. 14 and Art. 16(1) 
of the Constitution, since it was arrived at on the basis of a 
criterion which was not laid down -- Indian Administrative 
1083 
H 
1084 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 9 S.C.R. 
A Service (Promotion by Appointment) Regulations, 1955 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.14 and 16(1). 
JUDGMENT: 
Prospective operation of judgment -
Names of 
B appellants not sent by department for selection to /AS -- Held: 
Since the selection for the year 2011 had been over even 
before the interim application in CAT was decided, setting 
aside the selection conducted some two years back, and 
asking the respondents to re-do the exercise after considering 
C the appellants and other similarly situated candidates, would 
create lot of uncertainty, in as much as appellants and such 
other similarly situated candidates, might or might not finally 
succeed in the selection process -- Therefore, it will not be 
proper to set aside the selections made -- Though the 
D declaration is being granted that the appellants and persons 
situated like them were entitled to be considered by the 
Committee, no further relief in that behalf can be granted to 
them - The opinion rendered by the Court will have to operate 
prospectively in the matter of application of the relevant rules, 
E for the future selections. 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 
Public employment - Non-consideration of claim of 
candidates on unjust grounds -- Damages - Held: Even 
F though appellants cannot get the relief sought, they must get 
damages for non-consideration on unjust grounds, as 
Commissioner for Commercial Tax had acted to reduce the 
zone of consideration, contrary to the rules, and instructions 
-- The award of damages is necessary also as those who are 
G responsible for administration cannot trample upon rights of 
others on the grounds which are unsustainable in law --
Therefore, State Government is directed to pay to appellants 
the damages and litigation costs, as ordered in the judgment 
and may recover the amounts from erring officer(s) -
H Damages. 
B. AM RUTHA LAKSHMI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 
1085 
PRADESH 
The appellant in C. A. No. 9193 of 2013, an Assistant 
A 
Commissioner of Sales Tax, filed an O.A. before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the action of 
the State Government in not considering her case for 
being proposed for appointment to I. A. S. in the non-State 
Civil Services category. The appellant prayed for an ad 
B 
interim order, inter alia "to direct, the 2nd respondent not 
to convene the meeting of the Committee and not to 
consider the case of any other candidate(s) proposed by 
the 3rd respondent for appointment to l.A.S. by selection 
(of A.P. State Non-SCS Officers), pending disposal of c 
O.A". The interim relief having been declined both by the 
Tribunal as also the High Court, the ins

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