SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus Y.V.V.R. SRINIVASULU AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 742 · Decided: 17-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SECRETARY, ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 
v. 
Y.V.V.R. SRINIV ASULU AND ORS. 
APRIL I 7, 2003 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Selection-Rule prescribing preference on ground of additional 
C qualification-Meaning and interpretation of-Held: Such rule does not 
mean separate classification of those candidates or an absolute en bloc 
preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method of selection-
Also cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or complete precedence-
Only when claim of all eligible candidates is taken and they are equally 
D positioned such rule is followed in the matter of selection. 
Appellant-Commission invited applications for direct recruitment to 
Group-HA (Bachelor's Degree Standard) Services. Recruitment was based 
on written examination followed by an oral interview. Respondents I to 3 applied 
for the post and underwent the process of selection. They did not disclose their 
E additional qualification in the application or at the time of scrutiny. List of 
selected candidates was published on merit basis which included the names of 
the respondents, and appointments were also made. However, for two years 
respondents I to 3 were not appointed. Respondents filed an application 
contending that by virtue of their additional qualification viz. law degree 
F possessed by them, they were entitled to preference over the other candidates. 
Tribunal directed the appellant-Commission and the State Government to 
consider the claim of respondents I to 3 in preference to the candidates who 
were not having additional qualification. High Court confirmed the order. 
Thereafter, Rule S of tlie Andhra Pradesh Commercial Tax Subordinate 
Services Rules was promulgated which removed the provision for 'preference' 
G from the Rules. Appellant-Commission filed an application for review which 
was dismissed. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-Commission contended that the Tribunal as well as the High 
Court erred in treating provisions relating to preference to be rule of absolute 
preference, dehors the merit performance of the candidates, to claim 
H 
742 
SEC, ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMM. v. Y.V.V.R SRINIVASULU 
743 
precedence over others who were more meritorious on the ground of mere A 
possession ofa degree; that at the relevant point of time this provision was not 
in force; that the decision in Dilip Kumar's case is not applicable to the instant 
case, since it does not lay down any universal principle of law that in any and 
all circumstances the 'preference' envisaged has to be given so as to take 
precedence even in consideration; and that such a construction would defeat B 
the very purpose of selection on the basis of competitive examination and 
interview, causing grave injustice in addition, to the claims of candidates with 
greater merit performance. 
Respondents Nos. I to 3, contended that the amendment to the rule of 
preference with reference to one service relating to ACTO will have no impact C 
on the claims to other posts; and that the stipulation in the advertisement 
provides sufficient basis for the claims of respondents. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 'l.1. The rules prescribing preference on ground of additional D 
qualification do not provide for separate classification of those candidates or 
apply different norms of selection for them. The 'preference' envisaged in the 
rules, under the scheme of things and contextually also cannot mean, an 
absolute en bloc preference akin to reservation or separate and distinct method 
of selection for them alone. A mere rule of preference meant to give weightage E 
to the addition.al qualification cannot be enforced as a rule of reservation or 
rule of complete precedence. Such a construction would not only undermine 
the scheme of selection envisaged through Public Service Commission, on the 
basis of merit performance but also would work hardship and injustice to those 
who possess the required educational qualification with which they are entitled 
to compete with those possessing additional qualification too, and demonstrate F 
their superiority, merit wise and their suitability for the post. rt is not to be 
viewed as a preferential right conferred even for taking up their claims for 
consideration. (750-D-G( 
1.2. The preference envisaged has to be given only when the claims of G 
all candidates who are eligible are taken for consideration and when anyone 
or more of th

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