LexGOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC. versus P. DILIP KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ETC. ETC. A v. P. DILIP KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. FEBRUARY 3, 1993 [A.M. AHMADI AND M;M. PUNCHHI, JJ.) B Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules 1966-Rule-4-fl.ecruitment .~. to ·various posts in the · cadre of Deputy Executive Engineers in different services--f'reference to Post Graduates-'Validity of recruitment. The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (in short PSC) c Invited applications for vacancies in the cadre of Deputy Executive En- gineers in different services, to be filled by direct recruitment. Pursuant to the said advertisement both graduates and post graduates applied for the posts and were subjected to a written test and those who secured the j.... qualifying marks, were called for oral tesl/bltervlew. D The PSC ou an interpretation of Rule 4 of the A.P. Engineers Service Rules and following the decision oflhe High Court of A.P. in Writ F•tition No. 2568 of 1982 decided by Waghrey, J. on March 14, 1986 treated the Post Graduates as a class and gave them preferential treatment by select· ing the post-graduates first who secured more than the qualifying marks E > in the open category and since sufficient number of post-graduates were available, no graduate was selected. In the case of reserved categories also post-graduates lo the extent they were available were selected and in the case of non-availability of post-graduates, graduates were selected for appointment lo the posts in question. F The validity of the recruitment and the procedure followed by the A.P.P .S.C. were challenged before the Andbra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal upon bearing the application, took a view contrary lo the one taken by the learned single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 2568of1982 and quashed the select list. G In appeal lo this court, -~. HELD : 1.01. Rule 4 prescribes the qualification for appointment to certain ·posts including the post of Deputy Executive Engineer by direct recruitment, promotion or transfer. Note 1 forms part of the said rule. H 435 436 .SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] 1 S.C.R. A Before the Insertion or the second part to Note 1 by GOMs No~ 180 or 19113, the instrnctions contained in the Memo or 13tb October, 1978 provided guidance in the matter or grant or prererence to post-graduates ror entry by promotion to the post or Deputy Executive Engineer. The subject clause or the memo undoubtedly rerers to prererence to be granted to post-graduates B in the matter or promotion and the use or the expression 'seniority' In paragraph 2 thereoris undoubtedly indicative or the ract that Its application was limited to laying down guidelines ror application or the prererence clause round in Note 1 to the rule in the matter or promotion. [446F-H] 1.02. There can be no question or arranging post-graduates accord· C Ing to seniority where they are seeking appointment by direct recruitmenL In that case the list would have to be prepared on the basis or merit and_ not seniority. Therefore, the use or the expression 'promotion' in the subject clause and the expression 'seniority' in paragraph 2 or the memo is indicative or the ract that the instructions concerned appointment by D promotion. In paragraph 2 it is said that candidates with post-graduate qualification will be arranged in the order or their seniority and they shall be considered first and only after such a list is considered, the ca~e or ordinary graduates shall be considered and selection made on merit and ability. Paragraph 3 then says that the expression 'prererence shall be given' used in Note 1 means that other things being equal, holders or E post-graduate qualifications will be given preference and after that the claims or less qualified candidates would be considerel!_!or appointmenL The use or the word after inboth the paragraphs is significant and is indicative or the manner in which the prererence clause is to be worked out. [ 447C-E] F 1.03. It is indeed true that under paragraph 2 or the memo it was directed that 'the list or eligible candidates with post-graduati<>n qualifica- tion shall be first considered .•.• .and only after such a list is considered'; others will be considered, albeit on the basis or merit and ability. The language or this paragraph leaves no manner of doubt that the turn or G ordinary graduates ror consideration came only after the list or eligible post-grad\lates was settled. The order in which
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.