P. Adinarayana vs Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

S.R. Nayak, J.—When this writ petition was presented on 18.11.1996, the petitioner was serving as District Munsif. In the writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the provisional inter-se-seniority list of the District Munsifs of 1985-86 batch communicated through the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh - 2nd respondent herein in its proceedings Rc No. 88/94-b2, dated 17.1.1994.

The background facts leading to the filing of this writ petition be noted briefly as under : The petitioner while working as Assistant Public Prosecutor - Gr.II, applied for the post of District Munsif in pursuance of the notification No. 29/85 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, the 3rd respondent herein, and he was selected and appointed as District Munsif in the Andhra Pradesh Judicial Services under the limited recruitment by way of transfer. The Government of Andhra Pradesh - the 1st respondent herein published the list of candidates selected for appointment to the post of District Munsif by direct recruitment (General) and recruitment by transfer (General), and under limited recruitment in Annexures A B C respectively appended to G.O.Ms.No. 96, Home (Courts-C), dated 10.3.1987. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. The petitioner claims that since he was selected and appointed as District Munsif under the limited recruitment by way of transfer and he should have been assigned rank 5 instead of rank 95 in the inter se seniority list of District Munsifs of the 1985-86 Batch. At this stage itself, in order to reduce the sphere of controversy to the minimum, we may straightaway point out that if the petitioner is found to have been appointed as District Munsif under the limited recruitment by way of transfer, the claim of the petitioner has to be granted, and the assignment of rank 95 to the petitioner in the inter se seniority list of District Munsifs should be held to be irregular and illegal. Therefore, the 1st question that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner was appointed as District Munsif, in pursuance of notification No. 29/85, by way of limited recruitment by transfer or not. In para (12) of the counter affidavit filed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (for short "APPSC"), it is stated :

"12. It is respectfully submitted in this connection that the one SC vacancy notified for recruitment by Transfer under limited recruitment was in fact filled in by the Commission in 1983. This aspect could not be noticed earlier and the vacancy was inadvertently carried forward as if it is an unfilled vacancy and notified under limited recruitment. The petitioner being the lone eligible candidate who responded to the recruitment was evidently selected as per his rank, without reference to the marks secured by him."

Thus, it is clear that though there was no carried forward vacancy for SC candidate, according to the Commission, out of mistake and inadvertence, it wrongly advertised one post of District Munsif calling for applications to fill up that post by way of recruitment by transfer. This writ petition has undergone large number of hearings and adjournments as we could see from the proceedings sheet. In order to satisfy ourselves about the veracity of the statement made by the APPSC in para (12) of the counter affidavit, on an earlier occasion, we directed the learned Standing counsel for the APPSC to file a better comprehensive affidavit setting out necessary facts on the basis of which the statement made by the Commission in para (12) of the counter affidavit could be supported. In pursuance of that direction, the Public Service Commission through the learned Standing Counsel has filed additional counter affidavit sworn to by the Secretary of the Commission tracing the vacancy position vis-�-vis SC candidates as regards recruitment by transfer, commencing from the year 1979-80. It is stated in the counter thus :

"3. It is submitted that during 1979-80 a notification was issued on 1.11.1979 wherein 59 vacancies were notified. The break up of these vacancies was as follows :

From the above, it is clear that all the 3 SC vacancies under recruitment by transfer were filled and there was no vacancy to carry forward to the next recruitment i.e., 1985. However, one SC vacancy was notified as CF vacancy in 1985 inadvertently."

It is not seriously disputed before us with any supporting material that when the APPSC issued the notification No. 31/83, there were only three vacancies meant for SC candidates to be filled up by the mode, recruitment by transfer. In the additional counter affidavit, it is specifically stated that all those three vacancies earmarked for SCs were filled up. The candidates'' names who are appointed, are also stated in the counter affidavit. It is also pertinent to notice that in the notification issued by the APPSC in the year 1984, no vacancy is shown meant for SCs to be filled up by the mode of recruitment by transfer. In the context of these facts stated by the Commission in its additional counter affidavit, there is no good ground for us to doubt the integrity of the statement made by the Commission in para (12) of the counter affidavit. If there was really vacancy as claimed by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, in normal course, when the Commission issued notification No. 18/84 calling for application for the post of backlog vacancies, the vacancy meant for SC candidates to be filled up by the mode recruitment by transfer, should have been shown and notified. The very fact that in the Notification issued during the year 1984 it was not shown, clearly indicates that when the APPSC issued the Notification No. 29/85, there was no vacancy meant for SCs to be filled up by the mode limited recruitment by transfer. Be that as it may, though the petitioner admittedly did not apply for appointment to the post of District Munsif in the general category, the APPSC owning its mistake in advertising wrongly one post to be filled up by the SC candidates by the mode "limited recruitment by transfer" and that the petitioner had responded to that advertisement and participated in selection process, considered his candidature for appointment to the post of District Munsif under the general category and appointed him as District Munsif under the general category. Simply because the Commission has committed mistake in advertising one post of District Munsif in Notification No. 29/85 without there being any vacancy, on the basis of that mistake itself, it is not permissible for the petitioner to claim Rank No. 5 in the final seniority list of District Munsifs when it is established on the basis of the materials before the Court that the petitioner was not appointed as District Munsif under the limited recruitment by way of transfer, but he was appointed under the general category on the basis of his relative merit under the general category.

In the result, we do not find any substantive ground or merit to grant the relief to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.