LexSECRETARY, A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus B. SWAPNA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SECRETARY, A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION A v B. SW APNA AND ORS. MARCH I 6, 2005 [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] B Service law : A.P. Service Commission (Procedure) Rules-Rule 6-Selection-Wait list-Commission could select candidates from wait list-Commission could C also freeze the list-Respondent placed on wait list-Fresh advertisement for recruitment-Rule amended stating that fall out vacancies to be filled up from wait list-Respondent claiming entitlement to appointment-High Court holding that amended rule was operative and directing Commission to forward name of respondent for appointment-Justification of-Held : High Court was not D justified in referring to the amended Rule as after commencement of selection process, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed-The fact that Commission had directed fresh advertisement cleC!rly indicates that it had freezed the wait list and did not want to give effect to it. Selection norms-Relaxation-Scope of-Held : Criteria for selection E not to be relaxed by the authorities after the commencement of the selection process. Statutory construction-Rule-Every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. F Appellant Service Commission invited applications for the post of Assistant PRO on 17.1.1995. The selections were finalized on 2.7.1996. Respondent no. 1 was placed in the wait list which was valid for one year. As per existing Rule 6 of the A.P. Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, d- Commission could select candidates from ranking list in place of those who . relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within time and also new requisitions sent by appointing authority; however, the Commission had right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded. This Rule was amended on 30.7.1997, stating that fall out vacancies, if any, due to 991 H 992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [2005] 2 S.C.R. A relinquishment and non-joining of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. On 14.4.1997, competent authority had notified 14 vacancies. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he was entitled for appointment as these vacancies ought to be filled up by candidates from wait list. He then moved B Tribunal by filing an original application which was disposed of with direction to consider his appointment. Commission unsuccessfully challenged the said direction in a Writ Petition before the High Court. In appeal to this Court, appellant-Commission contended that un- amended Rule 6 was applicable and the fact that the Commission had C directed issuance of fresh advertisement indicated that the Commission did not want the ranking list to be given effect to. D Respondent No. 1 contended that there was no material before the Tribunal or the High Court to show that the appellant-Commission had directed freezing of the ranking list. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court has committed an error in holding that the amended rule was operative: Once a process of selection starts, the prescribed selection criteria cannot be changed. The logic behind the same E is based on fair play. A person who did not apply because a certain criteria e.g. minimum percentage of marks, can make a legitimate grievance, in case the same is lowered, that he could have applied because he possessed the said percentage. Rules regarding qualification for appointment if amended during continuance of the process of selection do not affect the same. That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless F it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the Statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights, the rule must be held to be prospective. 1999-D-FI G P. Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. etc., 11990) 1 SCC 411 and Gopct! Krishna Rath v. MA.A. Baig (dead) by Lrs. and Ors .. 119991 1 sec 544, relied on. Prem Singhand Ors. v. Hm)'Gna State Electricity Board and Ors., 119961 4 SCC 319 and State of Ja11111111 and Kashmir and Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar and H Ors .. (2005) 2 Supreme 303, referred to. SECY., A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. B. SWAPNA 993 2. Another aspect relevant is regarding the scope of relaxation of A norms. Although Court must look wit.h respect upon the performance of duties by experts in the respective fie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.