D MADAN MOHAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Per ) These Writ Petitions are taken up together as they raise same questions of fact and law. It appears that both the petitioners were candidates and sought appointment as Divisional Accounts Officers Grade-II pursuant to a notification issued by A.P. Public Service Commission vide advertisement No, 3/94.13 vacancies were sought to be filled up. Written examination was held on 22-10-94 and 23-10-94. The applicants were called for interview in May, 1995 and results were published in June, 1995. 14 candidates were selected. The petitioners were not amongst the 14 selected by the Public Service Commission, but out of 14 candidates selected 3 candidates did not join, therefore the petitioners say that they were the next in the panel, since there had been shortfall of 3 candidates who had not joined they should be offered appointment against those 3 vacancies. The respondents did not appoint them and petitioners moved the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the O.As. It may be pertinent to note that O.A. was filed on 7-6-96 whereas the validity of the waiting list was over on 4-6-96.

(2.) Now, the question is whether the petitioners could claim appointment because 3 candidates had failed to join within the stipulated period of time. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it was because of the inaction of the respondents that one year had expired which was the life of the panel and therefore they should not be made to suffer for the lapses made by the Public Service Commission. They contended that, the Pubic Service Commission was informed well in time by the other respondents that there had been shortfall of 3 vacancies therefore the Public Service Commission had to send their names for appointment. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in A. V. Bhogeshwarudu v. A.P. Public Service Commission. In this Judgment the Supreme Court merely said that it does not see justification in the stand of the State Public Service Commission that instead of filling up the vacancies by recommending the candidates next in order of merit out of the present list why a fresh selection should be made. but, these questions were gone into in detail by the Supreme Court in a later judgment which is reported in Madan Lal v. State of J & K. The Supreme Court considered the right of appointment of those who are kept in waiting list. The Supreme Court stated in clear terms that, even if all the posts which have been requisitioned to the Public Service Commission are not filled up during the period for which the panel remains alive even those posts which remain unfilled cannot be filed up from the waiting list. The case before the Supreme Court was a case pertaining to appointment of Munsiffs in the State of Jammu & Kashmir where 11 candidates were sought to be appointed. The Public Service commission forwarded a list of 20 candidates to the State Government for appointment. 11 candidates had been appointed, no fresh selection was made. The contention of the candidates who were in the waiting list was that since they were in the waiting list and vacancies were available therefore they should be appointed. The Supreme Court repelled this argument in the following terms;

(3.) For these reasons, we do not see any merit in these Writ Petitions which are accordingly dismissed.