AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Introductory:-
This appeal is filed against the order dated 04.02.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P No.17069 of 2020. The 2nd respondent/APPSC in the Writ Petition is the appellant herein.
For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as the writ petitioner and the respondents, as per their ranking in the Writ Petition.
Case of the Writ Petitioner:-
[i] Pursuant to Notification No.10 of 1999 dated 28.12.1999, applications were invited for filling up the vacancies of Group-II Services, and the writ petitioner applied for the post of „Junior Employment Officer‟ (JEO). After issuance of the notification vide advertisement No.10/1999, Act 20 of 2000 was promulgated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh regarding sub-classification in the Scheduled Castes. The petitioner was qualified in the written examination that was conducted pursuant to the said notification. She was called for interview and she attended the interview on 20.03.2004, and also got selection as JEO. After attending the certificate verification process, she was asked to submit zone preferences. The petitioner was informed that she was selected for the post of „Junior Employment Officer‟ in the department of Employment and Training in the Office of the Commissioner of Employment and Training, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, (arrayed as respondent No.3). She has submitted all the required documents etc., for formal verification, in compliance of the provisional selection and was waiting for the appointment.
[ii] Further, the case of the writ petitioner is that, Act 20 of 2000 provided for further sub-classification among the Scheduled Castes. However, the same was struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as unconstitutional vide order dated 05.11.2004. Striking out is prospective in nature and cannot be given retrospective effect. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 25.09.2006 in C.A. No.6758 of 2000 clarified that the selections, appointments and admissions made pursuant to the promulgation of Act 20 of 2000, and prior to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 05.11.2004, striking down the provisions shall not be affected.
[iii] Further case of the writ petitioner is that, pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court, 1st respondent-Principal Secretary (GAD), Government of Andhra Pradesh issued instructions to all the Heads of the Departments to take necessary action in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Further, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the State of Punjab and Others Vs. Davinder Singh and Others1, wherein the sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes is held permissible and earlier judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A. P. and Others is not correct, protects her selection.
Contention of the Respondent No.2:-
The selections were made in accordance with the conditions under the notification, and provisional selection list was issued. But on revised list, she is not entitled. The clarification orders dated 29.06.2006 relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to her case.
Orders of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition:-
Learned Single Judge observed that, as per the notification, selection to the executive posts shall be made on the basis of a written examination. Legislation was enacted by the promulgation of Act 20 of 2000, which introduced categorisation among Scheduled Castes. Pursuant to such categorisation, the petitioner was selected on 30.05.2004. Subsequently, the categorisation was struck down. However, a clarification order dated 25.09.2006 was given, saving the selections made. In view of the clarification in I.A. No.5 in C.A.No.6758 of 2000 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner is entitled for appointment. The Writ Petition is allowed.
Writ Appeal:-
Questioning the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 04.02.2026 the present appeal is filed on the following grounds:
[i] The total executive vacancies notified are (104 + 973=) 1077.
[ii] Interim directions were given in W.P.M.P. No. 31331, 31378 of 2003 in W.P.No.2868 of 2002 dated 05.12.2003, for preparing a single merit list, where under the name of the petitioner was found.
[iii] The writ petitioner secured 313.815 out of 520 marks and was provisionally selected. However, subsequently the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.7772 of 2004 vide orders dated 26.07.2004 directed for deletion of the word „single merit list‟, when the orders in the W.P.M.P. were questioned.
[iv] Thereafter, a separate list was prepared. The petitioner did not come up within the zone consideration.
[v] The last selected candidate, namely Sukanya Marupudi, bearing registration No.27003669 from SC category in Zone-III, has secured 317.73 marks out of 520 marks, whereas the petitioner has secured only 313.815 out of the 520 marks. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit. The writ petitioner has secured 261.315 for non-executive posts, out of 450 marks in the written examination and the last selected candidate namely Sreeena Maka, bearing Reg. No.17004108 and Sunanda Babu Melam, bearing Reg.No.16201850, has secured 277, out of 450 marks. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to appointment to either non-executive or executive posts. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the same and the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the clarification.
Heard both sides.
The writ petitioner has presented her case in person in both the writ petition and the present writ appeal. Her contention is that she is entitled for benefit of the clarification. She submits that, she was selected and waiting for formal appointment order and that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is correct.
Argument of Sri G.Seena Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the APPSC is that the merit list relied upon by the petitioner was no longer subsisting in view of the clarification orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in SLP No.7772 of 2004. In the combined merit list in respect of (104+973) 1077 vacancies, name of the writ petitioner is finding in the selection but subsequently she is not within the zonal consideration.
Analysis:-
The crux of the matter is extending the benefit of the clarificatory order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court passed in I.A.Nos.5 and 6 in Civil Appeal No.6758 of 2000 applying sub-classification. In the original selection list, the petitioner‟s name was found. Thereafter, the sub-classification was struck down, pursuant to which the name of the writ petitioner did not fall within the zone of consideration. However, the petitioner claims that she is entitled to benefit in terms of exemption given under the clarificatory orders dated 25.09.2006 passed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court.
It can be seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent-APPSC in W.P.No.17069 of 2020, that vide notification No.10 of 1999 dated 28.12.1999, the vacancy position as on the date of the notification for Executive and Non-executive posts is as follows:
| Executive | ||
| Sl.No. | Name of the Post | No. of Vacancies in 1st spell |
| 1. | Mpl. Commissioner Grade – III | 15 |
| 2. | Assistant Commercial Tax Officer | 83 |
| 3. | Asst. Labour Officer | 06 |
| Total | 104 | |
| Non-Executive | ||
| Assistant Section Officer | 141 | |
It is relevant to note that (27) categories of posts come under this recruitment, but it was indicated that the vacancies are „awaited‟, and it was clarified under Note-1 that the vacancies for the post indicated as „awaited‟ and for the purpose of reckoning vacancies of the recruitment, the vacancies arose during the recruitment year ending 31st August, 2000 will be taken into consideration. The written examinations were held on 26.08.2000 and 27.08.2000. The interviews for 104 executive posts were held from 14.12.2000 to 21.12.2000. The results were published on 22.12.2000 and the Unit Lists were communicated on 20.01.2001. The results for non-executive vacancies (Assistant Section Officers) were published on 22.02.2002. However, the Hon'ble High Court in its common order dated 08.07.2003 in W.P.No.2868 of 2002 and 2904 of 2002 directed the Government to report the vacancies which arose as on 30.08.2000 for the purpose of filling from that recruitment. In compliance with the above orders, the vacancies for the posts are reported as follows: Total number of Executive posts- 973; Total number of Non-executive posts-199.
Since the selection had already taken place, clarification was sought by filing a clarificatory petition. The High Court by its orders dated 05.12.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.31331 and W.P.M.P.No.31378 of 2003 it was ordered that no clarification is required. However, it is emphasized that only one merit list is required to be prepared in respect of notification No.10 of 1999. In respect of which, SLP No.7772 of 2004 was moved by one K.Ananda Reddy, in which the orders passed are as follows:-
“The High Court in the first part of the order held that no clarification was required to the order initially made by it on 8.7.2003. A reading of the said order shows that certain directions were given by the High Court.
Mr. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission stated that the above was only by way of clarification of the directions specifically stated in the order dated 8.7.2003.
We failed to understand as to how a clarification was made when the High Court itself was of the view that no clarification is required. In the circumstance we direct deletion of the portion:”However, it is emphasized that only one merit list is required to be prepared in respect of notification No.10/99” from the order dated 5 December, 2003. The applications are, therefore, disposed of.”
Referring to above orders, learned counsel for the appellant- APPSC would submit that the selection list with the petitioner, being one of the selected candidates, does not exist in view of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is relevant to note that selection notification dated 31.05.2004 issued by the APPSC would indicate that for – 1) Municipal Commissioner, Grade-III –(15) candidates; 2) Assistant Commercial Tax Officer - (236); 3) Deputy Tahsildar – (110); (4) Sub- Registrar's Grade-II (38), 5) Junior Employment Officer –(21); 6) Co-operative Sub-Registrar (169); 7) Assistant Labour Officer –(30); 8) Extension Officer (Rural Development)-(243); 9) Excise Sub-Inspector –(131); 10) Executive Officer Grade-II-(75); - candidates were selected.
If it is to be understood that the selection was in respect of initially notified vacancies of 104 and 141 posts alone, such a large number of selections could not have resulted. On the other hand, if the vacancies existing as on 30.08.2000 were taken into consideration for appointments pursuant to the notification No.10 of 1999, the selection ought to have been made for 1,077 posts.
The benefit of the clarification orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court made in I.A. Nos. 5, 6 in C.A.No.6758 of 2000 dated 25.09.2006, whether can be extended to the petitioner is another issue. The clarification orders reads as follows:-
“Counsel appearing on behalf of the non-applicants, who were appellants in these appeals have no objection to a clarification being given that all selections made and admissions granted in educational institutions prior to the judgment of this Court shall not be affected. Similarly, all appointments made prior to the judgment of this Court on the basis of reservation permitted by the Legislation which has been struck down by this Court, shall also not be affected. Promotions, if any, already granted before the judgment of this Court shall also remain unaffected. We direct accordingly.
We, however, clarify that no admission granted, appointment made or promotion granted subsequent to the judgment of this Court shall be valid, if they are in breach of the law laid down by this Court in its aforesaid judgment.”
There was provisional selection, followed by the issuance of proceedings calling upon the selected candidates to choose their option for a zone, which would in the natural course, result in issuing formal appointment order.
The assertion of the petitioner is that she has received a communication vide Ltr. No.G3/4672/90 dated 30.06.2004 intimating that she has been selected for the post of “Junior Employment Officer” in the department of Employment and Training and she was directed to submit all originals pertaining to the academic qualification. In pursuance to the said letter, the petitioner has submitted all the certificates on 07.07.2004 within 15 days. The process of the selection has come to an end and work of the recruitment Agency i.e., the APPSC come to an end; the petitioner is entitled for formal appointment order. Therefore, the clarificatory orders dated 29.06.2006 clearly applicable to the petitioner.
The letter dated 30.06.2004 addressed to the petitioner reads as follows:-
“I am pleased to inform that you have been provisionally selected to the post of Junior Employment Officer in the Department of Employment and Training vide reference cited. Before issuing appointment orders to you all your original certificate and study certificates i.e., academic qualifications, additional qualifications, age, community certificate, physical fitness certificate and study certificates from 4 to 10 class in case of local candidates etc., have to be verified.
I, therefore, request you to produce all your original certificates in respect of academic qualifications, additional qualifications, age, community certificate, physical fitness certificate and study certificates from 4 to 10 class in case of local candidates etc., to Assistant Director (Emp.), in the Commissionerate for verification within (15) days from the date of receipt of this letter.”
It is also relevant to note that pursuant to the representation made by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Employment and Training, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has addressed a Letter dated 27.02.2007, to the Social Welfare Department, Government of A.P. to advise the APPSC to reconsider the matter, to give true effect to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and on the basis of revised list, the name of the petitioner can be considered for appointment and also action to be taken in respect of appointed of candidates.
Now the core question is whether the letter dated 30.06.2004 amounts to appointment, to extend the benefit in terms of the orders of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in I.A.Nos. 5 and 6. Letter addressed by the 2nd respondent/APPSC is dated 30.06.2004 and the clarificatory orders of the Supreme Court in I.A. Nos. 5, 6 in C.A.No.6758 of 2000 are dated 25.09.2006. It is also relevant to note that there is endorsement of receiving the original certificates of the petitioner on 07.07.2004, much earlier to the clarification orders. Reason for inaction between 07.07.2004 to 25.09.2006 is not forthcoming from the end of the respondents. The letter of the Commissioner of Employment is dated 27.02.2007 seeking some action is pursuant to the representation of the writ petitioner. Therefore, the argument and submission made in the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, to the effect that the denial of the appointment is not attributable to any fault, error on irregularity on the part of the Government is not correct.
It is relevant to note that on 01.12.2006 Government of A.P. has issued a Memo vide Memo No.8904/CV.1/2000 by referring to the clarification of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in I.A. No.5 in Civil Appeal No.6758 of 2000, which reads as follows:
“The attention of all the Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments is invited to the reference 1 cited, and they are informed the Hon‟ble Supreme Court passed Judgment in Civil Appeal NO.6758 of 2000 and Batch dated 05/11/2004, declaring the A.P. Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act 20 of 2000 as ultra vires to the Constitution. They are also informed that in view of the above orders, an application has been filed in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, to permit the State Government to implement the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, with prospective effect alone, for the reasons stated therein. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in its judgment, dated 25/9/2006 in I.A.No.5 in Civil Appeal No.6758 has passed judgement as follows:- …. … All the Departments of Secretariat and Heads of Departments are therefore, requested to the necessary further action in the matter as per the Hon‟ble Supreme Court orders and also acknowledge the receipt of the Memo.
The letter dated 30.06.2004 addressed to the petitioner is indicating issuance of an appointment order upon formal verification of certain certificates. It is not the case of the appellant that the appointment was denied on account of any defect in the certificates sought to be produced by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petitioner would have every legitimate expectation that the appointment will complete in terms of the letter dated 30.06.2004. It is clear that the selection and addressing of letter dated 30.06.2004 informing her selection made on the basis of sub- classification within the SC category. It cannot be disputed by the appellant that the orders of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in I.A.No.5 in Civil Appeal No.6758/2000 dated 25.09.2006 protects the action taken in terms of such sub-classification. Further, it is also relevant to note that the Government issued a memo vide Memo No.8904/CV.1/2000 referring to the clarification of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, that the orders of the Supreme Court as to declaring the A.P. Scheduled Castes (Rationalisation of Reservations) Act, 20 of 2000 as ultra vires, is only prospective effect.
At one stage, when this Court sought clarification as to the possibility of creation of a supernumerary post, particularly in view of the prima facie observation that there were some to be lapses on the part of the appellant. Then an additional affidavit, dated 23.06.2026 was filed on behalf of the Secretary, APPSC/appellant. In para 17 of the affidavit it is stated that the denial of appointment to the writ petitioner was not attributable to any fault, error or irregularity on the part of the Government or the Commission and that the clarificatory order issued vide G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 07.03.2002, being prospective in nature, had no application to the selection process initiated pursuant to Notification No.10 of 1999. Further, para 17 of the affidavit shows that a revised list was prepared under SC-general category, which suggests that the list was not prepared on the basis of the classification as directed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Therefore, there is irregularity and error in the procedure followed in extending the benefit. No tenable grounds are found to deny the employment to the petitioner, and to modify the relief granted by the learned Single Judge in that regard.
Result:-
Having regard to the long passage of time, balancing the interest of both sides, as a special case, and to avoid a) multiplicity of litigation, b) possibility of unsettling the settled positions of third parties, and c) financial burden on the public money/ State exchequer, this Court finds it proper to direct that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the appointment of the writ petitioner shall be considered from the date of submission of her credentials on 07.07.2004 pursuant to the provisional appointment letter dated 30.06.2004, with a rider of “no work no pay”, from that date till her actual appointment. The appointment shall be given within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as a JEO or any other post with similar pay-scale.
Relief:-
In the result, the Writ Appeal is disposed of, with the following directions:-
The direction given in the W.P No.17069 of 2020 as per the orders dated 04.02.2026 as to appointment of the writ petitioner shall stand confirmed.
The writ petitioner shall be appointed as a JEO or in any other post with similar pay-scale, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
For the purpose of pensionary benefits, the appointment of the writ petitioner shall be considered from the date of submission of her credentials on 07.07.2004 pursuant to the provisional appointment letter dated 30.06.2004, with a rider of “no work no pay”, from that date till her actual appointment.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Footnotes
- 1.(2020) 8 SCC 1