VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 2 S.C.R. 1080 · Decided: 19-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1080
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 1080
1080
VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2473 of 2022)
APRIL 19, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law: Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the post
of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2012 – r.16(5) – Selection
process for recruitment of teachers – Appellant participated in the
selection process and was placed at 34th position – Respondents
declared that the candidates upto serial no. 33 (notified vacanices)
in the merit list are selected in the available vacancies and
accordingly invited the 33 candidates to appear for counselling –
One candidate did not turn up for counselling – Consequently, one
post in general category remained unfilled due to non-participation
of the said candidate – Appellant sought consideration of his
candidature which was declined – Tribunal allowed O.A. filed by
appellant which decision was reversed by High Court – Hence
instant appeal – Held: As per sub-rule (5) of r.16, the number of
candidates selected shall not be more than the number of vacancies
notified – It also specifically provides that there shall be no waiting
list and posts, if any, unfilled for any reason whatsoever, shall be
carried forward for future recruitment – The final selection list of
33 candidates was prepared. Thereafter all the selected candidates
were called for counselling, but one of the candidates did not report
for counselling – Therefore, said event took place after the final
selection list was prepared and published – As there was no
requirement of preparation of a waiting list, the appellant claiming
to be the next in the merit cannot claim any appointment as his
name neither figured in the list of the selected candidates nor in
any waiting list as there was no provision at all for preparation of
the waiting list – Sub-rule(5) of r.16 is very clear – Therefore, the
post remained unfilled and that post has to be carried forward for
the next recruitment – High Court was correct in reversing the order
of Tribunal.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1081
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
Held: 1. On a fair reading of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012
read with the Guidelines once the final selection list is prepared,
there shall be no waiting list and posts, if any, are unfilled for any
reason whatsoever, shall be carried forward for future recruitment
as per sub-Rule (5) of Rule 16 of the Rules, 2012. In the present
case, the final selection list of 33 candidates was prepared.
Thereafter all the selected candidates were called for counselling,
but one of the candidates did not report for counselling. The
aforesaid event took place after the final selection list was
prepared and published. As there was no requirement of
preparation of a waiting list, the appellant claiming to be the next
in the merit cannot claim any appointment as his name neither
figured in the list of the selected candidates nor in any waiting
list as there was no provision at all for preparation of the waiting
list. [Paras 7.3, 7.4][1090-A-C]
2. The appellant could have claimed the appointment to
the post which remained unfilled provided there is a provision
for waiting list as per the statutory provision. In absence of any
specific provision for waiting list and on the contrary, there being
a specific provision that there shall not be any waiting list and
that the post remaining unfilled on any ground shall have to be
carried forward for the next recruitment. The appellant, thus,
had no right to claim any appointment to the post which remained
unfilled. [Para 7.5][1090-D-F]
3. Now, the submission on behalf of the appellant that as
per sub-rule(5) of Rule 16, all the 33 posts notified are required
to be filled is concerned, the same has no substance. Sub-rule (5)
of Rule 16 is required to be read as a whole and in its entirety
and the same is required to be read alongwith the Guidelines
issued. What is provided under sub-rule (5) of Rule 16 is that the
number of candidates selected shall not be more than the number
of vacancies notified. However, it further provides that there shall
be no waiting list and posts, if any, unfilled for any reason
whatsoever shall be carried forward for future recruitment.
Therefore, there shall not be any appointment of more than the
VALLAMPATI SATHISH BABU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
number of vacancies notified but that does n

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