w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M. Raj Sekhar v/s The State of Telangana, rep. by its Prl.Secretary, Public Health & Municipal Engineering Dept. & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900UP2008PLC035742

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200GJ1981PLC004437

Company & Directors' Information:- G. R. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1990PTC058602

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = L28900MH2006PLC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- V U B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29290MH2005PTC154033

Company & Directors' Information:- N S ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29219TG1989PTC010511

Company & Directors' Information:- S S S ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27205KA1981PTC004194

Company & Directors' Information:- H M G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1977PLC019533

Company & Directors' Information:- K R R ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1989PTC016852

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28900MH2006PLC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- D B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1986PTC026541

Company & Directors' Information:- G G ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28900MH2006PTC159174

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ENGINEERING CORPN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34103WB1951PTC019638

Company & Directors' Information:- T P W ENGINEERING LTD [Active] CIN = U27203WB1975PLC029939

Company & Directors' Information:- C L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U34300PB1992PTC012057

Company & Directors' Information:- W & W ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2003PTC051228

Company & Directors' Information:- K B ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74160TG1988PTC008366

Company & Directors' Information:- R P ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29299WB1992PTC055482

Company & Directors' Information:- A M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U65910MH1981PTC187856

Company & Directors' Information:- C T ENGINEERING LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29259GJ1986PLC009007

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND S ENGINEERING INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1995PTC027661

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND R ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29199TZ1999PTC009012

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U85110KA1996PTC021507

Company & Directors' Information:- G M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28910GJ2013PTC077091

Company & Directors' Information:- W. E. ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U52335WB1985PTC039370

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999PB1949PTC000515

Company & Directors' Information:- L. B. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2018PTC225084

Company & Directors' Information:- R I ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210KA1991PTC012420

Company & Directors' Information:- U D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U32109DL1999PTC102586

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00350PB2006PLC029521

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G ENGINEERING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29110PB2006PLC029521

Company & Directors' Information:- D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29269TZ1932PTC000046

Company & Directors' Information:- V K B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141483

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200PN1999PTC014259

Company & Directors' Information:- K. I. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2009PTC133109

Company & Directors' Information:- G M E P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29192DL1998PTC096737

Company & Directors' Information:- M C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1972PTC006392

Company & Directors' Information:- C P ENGINEERING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27209TN1987PTC014052

Company & Directors' Information:- H V S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH2005PTC158342

Company & Directors' Information:- S C ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1982PTC035623

Company & Directors' Information:- U M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29200MH1977PTC019574

Company & Directors' Information:- S K ENGINEERING CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U05001UP1952PTC002408

Company & Directors' Information:- G RAJ & COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1993PTC058140

Company & Directors' Information:- G D ENGINEERING COMPANY (INDIA) PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74210WB1993PTC058553

Company & Directors' Information:- K. S. I. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36999HR2007PTC036660

Company & Directors' Information:- A P V ENGINEERING CO LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29113WB1945PLC006428

Company & Directors' Information:- R M RAJ AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1952PTC002146

Company & Directors' Information:- G B ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29212PB1996PTC017500

Company & Directors' Information:- S. O. HEALTH CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TG2017PTC119704

Company & Directors' Information:- T P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201OR2010PTC011517

Company & Directors' Information:- S B ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1982PTC005292

Company & Directors' Information:- D & L ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U29113TN2004PTC052690

Company & Directors' Information:- H R P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31503MH1997PTC108621

Company & Directors' Information:- S H ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB1999PTC088930

Company & Directors' Information:- V K S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28133TN2005PTC057283

Company & Directors' Information:- M K ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U29199GJ1995PTC027278

Company & Directors' Information:- K J ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29299PN2006PTC129171

Company & Directors' Information:- N. P. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31100WB2010PTC150609

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U67120WB1994PTC063442

Company & Directors' Information:- M P T ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U29299KL1994PTC007761

Company & Directors' Information:- A K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U50300UP1981PTC005354

Company & Directors' Information:- J P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28129MH1972PTC015813

Company & Directors' Information:- V M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U28920MH1969PTC014224

Company & Directors' Information:- M M ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U28932MH1979PTC021819

Company & Directors' Information:- N G T ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U27109WB1968PTC027292

Company & Directors' Information:- M A S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1976PTC019233

Company & Directors' Information:- K P ENGINEERING CORPORATION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74200WB1961PTC025258

Company & Directors' Information:- M A N INDIA ENGINEERING LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74200WB1979PLC020893

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1975PTC007743

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ & RAJ PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U51109WB1991PTC052055

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED. [Strike Off] CIN = U00500JH1988PTC003057

Company & Directors' Information:- L & V ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202MZ2005PTC007690

Company & Directors' Information:- C P C ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29120TZ1986PTC001880

Company & Directors' Information:- P K R ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130TZ2004PTC011094

Company & Directors' Information:- E-HEALTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U85110DL2001PTC113461

Company & Directors' Information:- N T ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999PY1986PTC000445

Company & Directors' Information:- R K ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31100MH2005PTC152838

Company & Directors' Information:- V J S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29130TN1996PTC036636

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. V. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253MH2010PTC205237

Company & Directors' Information:- U S ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U34300CH1986PTC006887

Company & Directors' Information:- A D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1989PTC002348

Company & Directors' Information:- R J ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27107RJ1972PTC001441

Company & Directors' Information:- O N ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC031987

Company & Directors' Information:- P N ENGINEERING CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1980PTC032750

Company & Directors' Information:- S G D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29210KA2009PTC050452

Company & Directors' Information:- G A S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29191MH2004PTC149606

Company & Directors' Information:- M. M. K. ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29305MH2014PTC252830

Company & Directors' Information:- K-4 ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U31400MH2010PTC204004

Company & Directors' Information:- N J ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209MH2015PTC262607

Company & Directors' Information:- P R S ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29253TN2009PTC073915

Company & Directors' Information:- T A ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U28992CH2003PTC025800

Company & Directors' Information:- M N A ENGINEERING PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202CH2006PTC030215

Company & Directors' Information:- A A P ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27106DL2005PTC138318

Company & Directors' Information:- S RAJ ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29220DL2012PTC239190

Company & Directors' Information:- A C ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2011PTC222515

Company & Directors' Information:- S. Z. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29253DL2014PTC274095

Company & Directors' Information:- IN ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74210DL2011PTC212284

Company & Directors' Information:- J N ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC278906

Company & Directors' Information:- N I ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC280734

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U51502DL2012PTC242516

Company & Directors' Information:- Z. M. ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL2007PTC168270

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND T ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U34300DL2005PTC136846

Company & Directors' Information:- THE ENGINEERING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999KA1951PTC000699

Company & Directors' Information:- S I ENGINEERING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U27109UP1967PTC003182

Company & Directors' Information:- S D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U18101DL1999PTC102948

Company & Directors' Information:- M B D ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210DL2008PTC181446

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJ ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29190GJ1995PTC027507

    Writ Petition No. 7117 of 2020

    Decided On, 11 August 2020

    At, High Court of for the State of Telangana

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

    For the Petitioner: D.V. Sita Ram Murthy, Senior Counsel, M. Avinash Reddy, Advocate. For the Respondents: D. Balakishan Rao, Standing Counsel for TSPSC, Vijaya Lakshmi, Govt.Pleader for Services-III.



Judgment Text


1. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under:

The Telangana State Public Service Commission (for short, ‘PSC’) issued Notification No.09/2015 on 29.08.2015 calling applications from eligible candidates to make selections for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, in various Engineering Subordinate Services, including Public Health and Municipal Engineers Subordinate Service. This notification included 258 posts of Assistant Engineers in Public Health and Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service. Out of this, 144 posts were earmarked to be filled up in city cadre. In the city cadre vacancies, 14 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Petitioner responded to the notification. In the selections conducted by the PSC, petitioner secured 169 marks. Petitioner was found eligible to be appointed against 14 vacancies reserved for SC category in city cadre. Accordingly, the PSC recommended his name to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health to appoint the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in city cadre and on appointment, he was posted to work in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.

2. While so, person by name Sri Venkat Swamy Salade, who also participated in the selections and secured 170 marks, claimed appointment as Assistant Engineer in the vacancies reserved for SC category in the city cadre stating that he actually belonged to city cadre, but he was erroneously treated as belonging to Zone-VI. As the PSC did not accept his plea, he filed W.P.No.42005 of 2016. Petitioner herein was arrayed as 3rd respondent in the said writ petition. W.P.No.42005 of 2016 was allowed by judgment dated 19.12.2018. This Court held that Venkata Swamy should be treated as a candidate belonging to city cadre and he should be appointed as per the merit secured by him against SC category vacancy by displacing the petitioner herein. In compliance of the said judgment, petitioner’s services were terminated and Sri Venkata Swamy was appointed in his place. Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred W.A.No.482 of 2019, which is pending consideration before this Court.

3. After termination of his services, petitioner obtained information from the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, and the PSC and found that two persons, who were included in the merit list at Sl.Nos.19 and 87 - Sri S.Arvind Kumar and Sri G.Anoop, respectively, were not appointed as Assistant Engineers; both belong to SC category of city cadre and, therefore, there were two clear vacancies on the day when judgment was rendered and when Venkata Swamy was appointed. Petitioner submitted his representation dated 15.06.2019 to the PSC stating as above, and requested the PSC to appoint him as Assistant Engineer in one of those two vacancies. Alleging that PSC did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, he filed W.P.No.17516 of 2019. Said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents-PSC to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner. In compliance of the said directions, by Memo dated 25.02.2020, petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered for appointment against those two vacancies in view of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms.No.81 General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 22.02.1997 and in view of the provisions in PSC Rules of Procedure. It is stated in the Memo that the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of selected candidates should be notified in the next recruitment. Challenging the said decision of the PSC, this writ petition is filed.

4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri D.V.Sita Ram Murthy for learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. D.Balakishan Rao, learned standing counsel for TSPSC, and Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Government Pleader for Services-III.

5.1. According to the learned senior counsel for petitioner, as on the date of judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.42005 of 2016, there were two clear vacancies, out of 14 vacancies notified in the recruitment notification, meant to be filled up by SC category candidates in city cadre, but no appointment was made against those vacancies and illegally petitioner’s services were terminated to accommodate Venkata Swamy.

5.2. According to learned senior counsel, G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 and the PSC Rules of Procedure are not attracted to the case on hand. Persons at Sl.Nos.19 and 87 were not appointed and, therefore, the vacancies do not fall under the category of nonjoining or relinquishment to attract the policy decision of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 and the PSC Rules of Procedure. According to learned senior counsel, those two persons did not respond to the notices issued to them to attend for verification of certificates. Unless certificate verification is undertaken to the satisfaction of the appointing authority, no appointment order would be issued and as those two persons did not attend to certificate verification, they were not issued appointment orders. Thus, these two vacancies were available and are not filled up even by now and therefore, there was no justification to terminate the services of the petitioner. Learned senior counsel would submit that these facts, though within the knowledge of the respondent-PSC, were not placed before this Court when Court considered W.P.No.42005 of 2016. Petitioner could secure the relevant information under the Right to Information Act only after the said writ petition was disposed of.

5.3. In support of his contention that the two vacancies mentioned above can not be treated as fallout vacancies, learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decision of learned single Judge in the case of K.Rajasekhar vs. The Vice Chairman & Managing Director, APSRTC, Hyderabad and another (2009 (3) APLJ 437 (HC), decision of Division Bench of this Court in Government of A.P. and others vs. Bhagam Dorsanamma and others (MANU/AP/1598/2013), and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen and others vs. State of Telangana and others (2017) 14 SCC 797). According to the learned senior counsel, as held by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above decisions, if no appointment order is issued to the selected candidate, the vacancy does not come under the category of non-joining vacancy or relinquishment vacancy and next meritorious candidate should be appointed.

6.1. Learned standing counsel vehemently defended the decision of the PSC. According to him, all the candidates, who were included in the provisional merit list, have attended for certificate verification before the PSC and on such certificate verification, their names were recommended to the appointing authority. Since their names were already included in the merit list forwarded to the appointing authority, if any candidate does not join in the post, it would become non-joining vacancy and has to be filled up only by a separate recruitment.

6.2. He would submit that system of waiting list is dispensed with. The merit list has to be confined to the number of vacancies notified and once merit list was drawn and sent to the appointing authority, the question of altering the merit list or including some other person in the merit list on the ground that the candidates, whose names are included in the merit list forwarded to the appointing authority, have not joined, is not permissible. The policy of the Government is very clear, as can be seen from G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 22.02.1997 and the PSC Rules of Procedure also do not permit such appointment. Learned standing counsel heavily relied upon paragraph-10 of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen (supra) to contend that in the said selection, State Government relaxed the relevant provision as a special case to call for the candidates for verification of certificates as one-time exercise and permitted TSTRANSCO, TSSPDCL and TSNPDCL to fill up the left over notified vacancies. He, therefore, submitted that in view of peculiar facts of that case, decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and is not applicable to the case on hand.

6.3. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9338 of 2019, dated 11.12.2019, where Rules 6 and 7 of the PSC Rules of Procedure were interpreted. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3346 of 2019 dated 01.04.2019 in support of his contention that once a merit list is drawn and a candidate shown in the merit list has not joined, it cannot be filled up by the candidates lower down in the wait list. He would submit that merely because a candidate secured merit, there is no indefeasible right in him to claim appointment even if the vacancies are available. Thus, as petitioner has no such vested right, he cannot claim appointment by contending that two vacancies, meant to be filled up by SC candidates, were not filled up.

7. Though petitioner claimed that candidates at Sl.Nos.19 and 87 were not issued appointment orders, during the course of hearing, it was clarified that candidate at Sl.No.87 attended for certificate verification and was issued appointment order but did not join in the post. With reference to candidate at Sl.No.19, there was no clarity as to whether candidate reported for certificate verification before the PSC and report before the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), and whether appointment order was issued to the candidate at Sl.No.19, but he refused to join within the time granted to him. As this aspect is crucial to consider the claim of the petitioner, by order dated 09.07.2020, learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions from the Engineer-in- Chief, Public Health, as to whether the information furnished by him under the Right to Information Act stating that person at Sl.No.19 of the merit list did not appear for certificate verification is true and no appointment order was issued to him. Learned standing counsel for PSC was also directed to ascertain when the merit list, placed on record, was final merit list drawn by the PSC.

8. According to learned Government Pleader, Sri S.Aravind Kumar, who was shown at Sl.No.19 in the list forwarded by the PSC, did not attend for certificate verification and, therefore, no appointment order was issued to him. Sri G.Anoop, who was shown at Sl.No.87 in the merit list attended for certificate verification and was issued appointment orders, but he did not join in the post. Learned standing counsel for the PSC clarified that the list placed on record is part of Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health) record. Both candidates reported for certificate verification before PSC and only after certificate verification, their names were included in the merit list sent to Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health). He has further clarified that no further recruitment notification is issued to fill up the posts of Assistant Engineers after the 2015 notification.

9. From the above narration of facts, it is clear that Sri S.Arvind Kumar, shown at Sl.No.19 in the merit list forwarded by the PSC to the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health), selected against 14 vacancies reserved to be filled up by S.C. category candidates in city cadre, did not report for certificate verification and appointment order was not issued to him.

10. In the above facts scenario, issue for consideration is, whether the vacancy remained unfilled because the selected candidate did not report for certificate verification, and therefore no appointment order was issued, should be treated as a clear vacancy and is not a fallout vacancy?

11. Before considering the issue, one aspect needs to be cleared. According to learned senior counsel, petitioner do not intend to prosecute W.A.No.482 of 2019. On behalf of petitioner, Memo USR No.61809 of 2019 was filed on 21.10.2019 to withdraw the Writ Appeal. Further, in the writ petition, petitioner is not only challenging the decision of Public Service Commission rejecting his request to appoint him to unfilled SC category in city cadre, but also challenging the decision deleting his name from the merit list and dispensing with his services. As deletion of his name from the merit list and dispensing with his services was in compliance of the judgment in W.P.No.42005 of 2016, which decision has become final, the petitioner cannot seek to challenge them in this writ petition. Thus, the prayer in the writ petition is confined to legality of the decision of Public Service Commission, dated 25.02.2020 rejecting the request of petitioner to appoint against unfilled SC category, and the consequential relief to appoint him as Assistant Engineer in city cadre.

12. To appreciate the respective contentions, it is necessary to look into the policy decision of the Government as notified in G.O.Ms.No.81, date 22.02.1997, the ad hoc rule notified vide G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 and the PSC Rules of Procedure.

13. By G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 (G.O.Ms.No.81 General Admn. (Services-A) Department: 8. Therefore, the Government, after careful examination, has agreed with the proposal of the Andhra Pradesh Service Commission and accordingly direct that hence forth the list of the candidates approved/selected by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/categories notified by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc., of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment. 5 Rule 6 (after amendment) – The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserved communities/ categories notified by the Unit Officers Government. The fallout vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.), Government directed that henceforth the list of candidates approved/selected by the PSC should be equal to the number of vacancies only and the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining of selected candidates should be notified in the next recruitment. Consequently, ad hoc rule was formulated and notified vide G.O.Ms.No.544 dated 04.12.1998, which gives effect to the above policy decision.

14. Rule 65 of PSC Rules of procedure contemplated wait list and operation of the wait list for one year. This was amended in the year 1997, dispensing with wait list and to confine merit list to the extent of vacancies notified only, giving effect to G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997.

15. G.O.Ms.No.81, the ad hoc rule and Rules 6 and 7 of PSC Rules of procedure were considered by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the precedent decisions.

15.1. In K.Rajasekhar (supra), petitioner claimed that though he was selected to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee), he was not appointed. It was contended that person by name M.Vijaya Bhaskar was selected to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) under the Departmental quota in Hyderabad zone, but selection of M.Vijaya Bhaskar to the post of Traffic Supervisor (Trainee) was cancelled on the ground that he was not a Departmental candidate. Challenge made to the said decision in W.P.No.7791 of 2009 was negatived and writ petition was dismissed on 21.04.2009. The claim of the petitioner to appoint him to the said post, as per the merit secured by him, was rejected on the ground that in view of G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997, there was no scope to operate merit list further. Rejecting the said contention, this Court held that G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997 is applicable only to fallout vacancies due to relinquishment and non-joining of the selected candidates, and only such vacancies shall be notified in the next recruitment, and as the Corporation committed error in considering ineligible candidate under the Departmental quota, it would mean that there was no selection at all and, therefore, vacancy could not be treated as arising out of relinquishment or non-joining of selected candidate and accordingly directions were issued to appoint the petitioner.

15.2. In W.P.No.957 of 2011, similar issue was considered by the Division Bench of this Court. The challenge made to the decision of the APAT to provide employment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher was dismissed, upholding the view taken by the Tribunal holding that the vacancy cannot be treated as nonjoining vacancy as the candidate initially selected against Physically Handicapped category was found to be not belonging to Physically Handicapped category. Therefore, next meritorious candidate was entitled to be appointed. Similar view was taken in W.P.No.5622 of 2013 in the judgment rendered on 13.03.2013.

15.3. In Bhagam Dorasanamma (supra), the same issue was considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench elaborately. The Division Bench of this Court examined the scope of G.O.Ms.No.81 and the ad hoc rule and considered earlier decisions. The Division Bench upheld the view taken by the earlier Division Bench and learned single Judge, and held that the process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality only with the act of issuing appointment order and the available vacancy cannot be treated as non-joining vacancy or vacancy arising out of relinquishment. The stand of respondents on the scope of application of G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 22.02.1997 and ad hoc Rule notified vide G.O.Ms.No.544, was repelled. It was a combined recruitment to various posts in the Forest Department. Ms. Nallabothula Laxmi Prasanna was selected for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Beat Officer and Thanadar, but she opted to the post of Assistant Beat Officer. Petitioner was within the merit to be appointed as Thanadar, but she was not appointed treating said vacancy as non-joining vacancy. The Division Bench held that as person did not choose to take second post, having accepted the higher post, the vacancy in the post of Thanadar cannot be treated as non-joining vacancy.

15.4. This view of the Hon’ble Division Bench in Bhagam Dorasanamma (supra) was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Munja Praveen (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“9. According to us, the High Court has totally misconstrued the above GOMs. The portion of the GOMs quoted above clearly lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy should be notified again. This portion of the GOMs admits of only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downwards. This is also clear from Clause 9 of the GOMs, which also clarifies that fallout vacancies due to relinquishment or non-joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is issued.”

(emphasis supplied)

15.5. Kulwinder Pal Singh and others. vs. State of Punjab and others (Civil Appeal Nos.5035 – 5036 of 2016):

a) Facts culled out from the judgment are as under: Out of 52 vacancies of Punjab Civil Service (Judicial Branch) notified for direct recruitment on 7.3.2007, 27 were meant for open competition and balance are reserved for various social groups. In the recruitment process, eight posts reserved to various categories including one meant for S.C category, remained unfilled. They were de-reserved and exhausted by Open Competition candidates up to Serial No. 34. Accordingly, appointment orders were issued to all the 52 candidates. Candidates at serial Nos. 1, 5 and 32 in the merit list did not join. Persons at serial Nos. 35, 36 and 37 i.e., the next in the merit belonging to Open Competition staked claim to those three vacancies. Their claim is negatived by the High Court on the administrative side, which decision is affirmed on the judicial side.

b) Three aspects can be noticed from the facts noted above:

(i) The selection process was completed by issuing appointment orders to all the 52 selected candidates; (ii) Three candidates selected against Open Competition vacancies did not join; and iii) High Court on the administrative side was critical of de-reservation of one S.C. vacancy and filling all vacancies contrary to earlier decision to adjust further vacancies towards supernumerary vacancies created to comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning earlier recruitment.

c) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that no appointment can be made beyond the number of vacancies advertised; Once appointment orders are issued to all the vacant posts, the process of selection comes to an end; Waiting list cannot be used as a reservoir, to fill up a vacancy that may arise after the issuance of notification/advertisement and the unexhausted select list/waiting list cannot be pressed into service any more; merely because the name of a candidate finds a place in the select list, it would not give him indefeasible right to get an appointment as well; It is always open to appointing authority not to fill up vacancies. Therefore, the claims of petitioners therein to appoint them against non-joining vacancies were rejected.

15.6. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Akhlesh V.S. (C.A No. 3346 of 2019 dated 1.4.2019):

i) KSRTC placed an indent with the PSC to make recruitment for 405 vacancies in the post of Blacksmith Grade II. The Public Service commission recommended 380 names. The Corporation appointed upto rank number 278 only. The rank list expired on 21.10.2017. Candidates who secured rank below 278 claimed to make appointments to balance vacancies as recommended by Public Service Commission. High Court directed to fill all vacancies including those which arose subsequently. The corporation contended that it has financial crunch and higher staff - bus ratio and thus do not require more staff.

ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Court cannot compel the employer to recruit when, it does not intend to recruit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is settled law that mere existence of vacancy or employment does not create any indefeasible right to appointment.

15.7. Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Kota Lingeswara Rao and others (Civil Appeal No. 9338 of 2019 dt 11.12.2019):

From the judgment, following facts are culled out:

a) In the selection to the post of Junior Lecturer (Mathematics), Sri G.V.Ramakrishna Sagar was the last selected candidate in Zone III. He did not join the post. The selections were finalised in the year 2012. Four years later, Sri Kota Lingeswara Rao, filed O.A.No.3142 of 2016 in the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, claiming as the next meritorious candidate and praying to appoint him to the vacancy caused due to non joining of Sri G V Ramakrishna Sagar. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. on the ground of delay and latches. W P No. 3695 of 2018 was filed in the High Court. The High Court by judgment dated 12.7.2018 allowed the writ petition directing the Public Service Commission to appoint the petitioner as Junior Lecturer in Mathematics against non joinder vacancy. The High Court relied on Rule 7 of the Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure.

b) The Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the amendment to Rule 6 and Rule 7 of the Rules of Procedure and held that as maintaining waiting list is dispensed with, the respondent being a non selected candidate cannot urge the Commission to select him against non joinder vacancy based on unamended Rule 6 and such vacancy should go to next recruitment. Further, the claim of applicant before APAT was negatived on the ground of delay and latches.

16. In matters of recruitment, preparation of merit list and operation of the merit list, principles culled out from the above decisions, are as under:

(1) Selection process culminates only when an order of appointment is issued to a validly selected candidate;

(2) Once selection list is drawn and appointment orders are issued to all the selected candidates and entire select list is exhausted, question of operating waiting list to fill fallout vacancy does not arise;

(3) A vacancy can be treated as fallout vacancy only when a validly selected candidate receives appointment order, but does not join or joins but resigns to the post/relinquishes the post;

(4) If no appointment order is issued against notified vacancy to a candidate in the select list for any reason, including not reporting for certificate verification, it does not amount to exhausting the merit list and such vacancy is not a fallout vacancy;

(5) Even when appointment orders are issued against all vacancies, but on verification of certificates of eligibility such as disability, educational qualification, social status etc., if selection of a candidate is cancelled, the vacancy cannot be treated as a fallout vacancy. In other words, but for wrong declaration/claim, the candidate could not have been included in the merit list and therefore the other meritorious candidate who fits into particular category/criteria, ignored earlier because of such wrong declaration/claim, should not be deprived of his entitlement for appointment.

(6) Merely because a candidate is included in the merit list no indefeasible right would accrue to him to claim appointment and it is for the employer to utilise the merit list partially or fully. However, if the employer decides against filling all or any of the vacancies notified, he has to assign reasons in support of such decision.

17. In public employment, recruitment never takes place in a fixed time frame. The competent authority takes his own time to identify vacancies and notify to the recruiting agency. Process of recruitment is cumbersome and many times lack clarity on basic issues, such as qualifications, age of eligibility, procedure of selection, reservation, etc., leading to litigation, contributing delays in recruitment. All this happens against sanctioned cadre strength, while competent authority eagerly waits persons to man the posts. Having regard to delays in finalizing the selections and appointments, the system of wailing list was envisaged to draw persons from the said list against non-joinder/relinquishment/ subsequent vacancies.

18. However, in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, operating waiting list against non-joinder/relinquishment vacancies created lot of administrative difficulties, resulted in sliding down or up in the merit list, moving candidates appointed in one post to another post, many times after few years of service, appointing lower meritorious candidates to higher posts leaving more meritorious to work in less creamy posts, leading to unending litigation. The problem was more acute when combined recruitment was made to posts organized in different services having different status in the hierarchical structure and future prospects. For example, in Group - I service, there are posts of Deputy Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Commercial Tax Officer, etc. Though all are called as Group – I Service posts, but status and importance of some posts is higher compared to other posts.

19. In view of practical problems faced by the Government, it dispensed with maintaining a wait list and decision was taken to draw merit list only to the extent of vacancies notified (G.O.Ms.No.81). An ad hoc Rule was made, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998, giving statutory backing to the policy decision. Consequently, Rule 6 of PSC Rules of procedure was also amended. This background has to be noted to justify dispensing with wait list. Thus, there is no wait list system and merit list has to be confined to the extent of vacancies notified.

20. However, not maintaining wait list is different from drawing proper merit list and operating it. The term ‘merit list’ has larger connotation and is a dynamic concept. The process of recruitment commences when the employer/appointing authority identifies vacancies in a post and places an indent with the recruiting agency. The role of recruiting agency starts when it receives the indent and sets in motion process of recruitment. It’s role ends when it draws final merit list, to the extent of indent placed before it and forwards the merit list to the employer/appointing authority.

21. On receiving the merit list, the employer/the appointing authority undertakes verification of the education and/or technical qualifications, age, social status, local candidate status and antecedents, and only on being satisfied, he would issue appointment orders. For example, if a candidate claims employment against a post reserved for B.C.-(A) group of castes, he has to produce a valid caste certificate. Similarly, if a person is claiming reservation against a disabled category, he must have a valid disability certificate. Same would apply to local reservation, educational qualifications etc. Antecedent verification is also an important component in the appointment process. Thus, before a person is appointed, irrespective of his merit position, candidate has to satisfy the appointing authority about his eligibility/ suitability, and merely based on his merit list position, he is not assured of his employment. Some times, the employer splits the verification process into two components and he undertakes some verification process after appointing the candidate provisionally.

22. If the appointing authority finds that candidate does not belong to a social group or false claim is made on social status/ does not have clean antecedents/suppressed certain material information having a bearing on his selection/character / does not appear for certificate verification/ does not produce relevant certificates, he may not appoint him or if such verification takes place after appointment, may cancel his provisional appointment.

23. Thus, drawing merit list is only one limb of recruitment process. The process of recruitment is complete only when appointment orders are issued / or provisional appointment is affirmed to all the candidates included in the merit list, on being satisfied of eligibility and suitability.

24. That is not the end of the story. In many instances, even though appointing authority was satisfied with the eligibility and suitability of the candidate and appoints him, there can be a challenge to such claim of the candidate on various aspects, such as educational qualifications, social status, percentage of disability and local status etc. and such challenge can end up holding that candidate was not eligible for appointment.

25. Thus, broadly there are three aspects on which a candidate included in the merit list can be denied appointment/liable for cancellation of his provisional appointment:

(1) At the stage of verification of eligibility/suitability before appointment;

(2) Though provisionally appointed, claim of belonging to a social group was found to be wrong/antecedent verification established bad antecedents disentitling him to public employment; and

(3) On a successful challenge by another candidate on eligibility/suitability of a candidate included in the merit list/appointed to a post.

26. The precedential law makes it clear that in all the three contingencies mentioned above, recruitment process has not attained finality and therefore the next meritorious candidate belonging to that social group/open competition, as the case may be, can stake claim for appointment. Such vacancy is not treated as a fall out vacancy. It does not amount to maintaining wait list and operating it. It is rectifying an illegal selection/deleting the name of a person who was not issued appointment order, including when he did not show up for certificate verification. G.O.Ms.No.81, ad hoc rule and amended Rule 6 of PSC Rules of procedure, as interpreted by the Constitutional Courts also make this aspect clear.

27. In spite of clear declaration of law by the Constitutional Courts, the skewed up understanding on what is meant by ‘fallout vacancy’ is resulting in depriving employment to successful candidates.

28. In the case on hand, admittedly, the person at Sl.No.19 S.Arvind Kumar did not report before the appointing authority for certificate verification and therefore no appointment order was issued to him. Thus, this vacancy cannot be treated as fallout vacancy and the policy decision in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997, consequential ad-hoc rule notified in G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 and amended Rule 6 of PSC Rules of procedure are not attracted. Therefore, it was available to include next meritorious candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category in the merit list and to appoint him.

29. As always, the stout opposition to a genuine claim is by raising the contention, as urged by the learned standing counsel, that merely because a candidate cleared examination or included in the merit list, the candidate has no indefeasible right to claim appointment and the recruiting agency/appointing authority may refuse to appoint. There is no quarrel with this proposition. However, consistently, even in the decisions relied by learned standing counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while setting forth limitations on claim for appointment merely because a candidate is selected, emphasized that denial of employment must be for valid reasons.

30. In Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs. South Eastern Railway (2019) 12 SCC 798) while recognizing the employer’s right not to fill all vacancies, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the need to assign cogent reasons when employer declines to operate the merit list and fill all the notified vacancies. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed, “just because discretion is vested in the authority, it does not mean that this discretion can be exercised arbitrarily” (paragraph-5). “However, the State must give some justifiable, non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the post. When employer is the State, it is bound to act according to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It cannot, without any rhyme or reason, decide not to fill up the post. It must give some plausible reason for not filling up the posts” (paragraph-16).

31. In Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court accepted the reasons assigned by the Corporation not to fill all the vacancies notified on the ground that the Corporation was undergoing financial crunch, implying that it cannot afford to take the load of more employees and has no requirement of additional personnel. Thus, applying the proposition of law depends on the facts of a given case and justification assigned for not appointing all the candidates in the merit list.

32. As noticed above, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the right of a candidate, who is next in the eligibility list to claim to include in the merit list and be appointed to a vacancy against which no appointment order was issued, as the more meritorious candidate did not apt to the post in issue. This right is subject to overarching decision of the employer not to fill a post, even if there is a vacancy, for valid reasons. From the proposition of law culled out from the precedent decisions, it is beyond pale of doubt that the selection process is complete only when appointment orders are issued to all the candidates included in the merit list to the extent of vacancies notified or a conscious, well considered decision is taken not to fill all or any of the vacancies.

33. In the case on hand selection process was not complete as candidate selected against SC reserved vacancy, Sri S.Arvind Kumar did not report for certificate verification and no appointment order was issued to him. In view of the law on the subject, the claim of petitioner to include his name in the merit list against SC reserved vacancy, in the place of Sri S.Arvind Kumar, who has opted out for appointment as Assistant Engineer at the stage of certificate verification by the appointing authority, is valid. It is not the stand of respondents that they did not intend to fill up all the vacancies notified. In fact, it was offered to Mr. Arvind Kumar, but he did not evince interest. Only reason assigned to deny claim of petitioner was procedural, i.e., in view of G.O.Ms.No.81, ad hoc rule and Rule 6 of the Public Service Commission Rules of Procedure, and not on the ground that the Department did not intend to fill the vacancy for valid administrative reasons. In other words, only by treating the vacancy caused due to not reporting for certificate verification by Sri S.Arvind Kumar as fallout vacancy, petitioner’s claim is denied.

34. In addition to the above aspect, i.e., the vacancy in issue is not a fall out vacancy, it is also to be noted that in the instant case, petitioner was included in the final merit list against 14 vacancies reserved for SC category in city cadre and was appointed and was working. W.P.No.42005 of 2016 was filed by Sri Venkat Swamy Salade, who secured one mark more than the petitioner, contending that by mistake he was treated as candidate belonging to Zone-VI, but he belongs to city cadre and as per his merit, he should be appointed in city cadre. Considering the said claim, relief was granted by this Court and he was directed to be appointed. Accordingly, he was appointed by terminating the services of petitioner. Apparently, the direction to terminate the services of petitioner was issued as Court was not informed about availability of vacancy because no appointment order was issued to Arvind Kumar.

35. By the time Sri Venkata Swamy Salade succeeded before this Court in W.P.No.42005 of 2016, a clear vacancy was available to accommodate the petitioner and there was no occasion to terminate the services of petitioner. If that vacancy was shown as available, the petitioner would have continued in service. Admittedly, that vacancy was meant to be filled up by SC category candidates and petitioner was next meritorious S.C. candidate eligible to be appointed in the place of S. Aravind Kumar. So far no further recruitment has taken place. The decision of this Court in W.P.No.42005 of 2016 was rendered on 19.12.2018. Based on this judgment, his services were terminated. Immediately thereafter, petitioner started probing into the availability of vacancies and as soon as he secured information, he made representation before the Commission and to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health. When they did not respond, he filed Writ Petition No.17516 of 2019. After directions issued by this Court, decision was made by the PSC, impugned herein. In spite of petitioner placing before the appointing authority and the PSC the correct facts, the same were not even looked into and mechanically Public Service Commission rejected the claim.

36. There was at least one clear vacancy meant to be filled up by SC candidate which is not a fall out vacancy. Based on the merit secured by him, petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the year 2016. Mr.Salede got one mark higher than petitioner. It is not disputed that there is no other SC candidate between these two persons. As the petitioner is the next meritorious candidate, he is entitled to be appointed against unfilled SC vacancy in the city cadre. In the first instance, he could not have been terminated to accommodate Sri Venkata Swamy Salede if concerned rules are applied properly and the Court was appraised of factual and legal position. Thus, for no fault of him, petitioner lost his job.

37. Having regard to these facts, it is not open to PSC to shield itself by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India (1991 AIR 1612: 1991 SCR (2) 567) and other decisions referred to above, and to contend that petitioner has no indefeasible right to seek appointment merely because he secured merit. In fact, the manner in which the drawing of merit list is handled resulted in illegally depriving employment to petitioner. Thus, accepting such stand would result in greater injustice. In the facts of this case, it cannot be said that petitioner has no right to claim employment.

38. In paragraph-11 of his representation addressed to the Public Service Commission, petitioner has clearly pointed out that there are two existing vacancies, meant to be filled up by SC category candidates and they are not fall out vacancies. Based on the information obtained by him, he has explained in detail as to how the vacancies are available. Further, from the decision impugned, it is clear that there was no application of mind by the PSC while considering the grievance of the petitioner. The request was mechanically rejected by referring to G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 22.02.1997. His submissions were not answered. Thus, the impugned decision is arbitrary.

39. At this stage, it is expedient to consider the precedent law on improper exercise of power by constitutional/statutory authority and when a decision can be said as arbitrary.

39.1. In Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1), Supreme Court held;

“241. It is an unwritten rule of law, constitutional and administrative, that whenever a decision-making function is entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a statutory functionary, there is an implicit obligation to apply his mind to pertinent and proximate matters only, eschewing the irrelevant and the remote. (See Shalini Soni v. Union of India [(1980) 4 SCC 544 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 38])”.

39.2. The view expressed by Professor Bernand Schwartz in his book ‘Administrative Law’ (3rd Edn.) approved by Supreme Court in Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. Anibhai Nathubhai Patel and others (2006 7 SCC 200) aptly applies to this case. Supreme Court observed in Paragraph-19 as under:

“19. The following passage from Professor Bernard Schwartz's book Administrative Law, (3rd Edn.) aptly echoes our thoughts on the scope of judicial review:

“Reviewing courts, the cases are now insisting, may not simply renounce their responsibility by mumbling an indiscriminate litany of deference to expertise. Due deference to the agency does not mean abdication of the duty of judicial review and rubber-stamping of agency action: [W]e must accord the agency considerable, but not too much deference; it is entitled to exercise its discretion, but only so far and no further.”

Quoting Judge Leventhal from Greater Boston Television Corpn. v. FCC [444 F 2d 841, 851 (DC Cir 1970)] he further says:

“…the reviewing court must intervene if it ‘becomes aware … that the agency has not really taken a “hard look” at the salient problems, and has not genuinely engaged in reasoned decision-making.…”

(emphasis supplied)

39.3. In Asha Sharma v. Chandigarh Administration and others (2011) 10 SCC 86), Supreme Court held as under:

“12. Arbitrariness in State action can be demonstrated by existence of different circumstances. Whenever both the decision-making process and the decision taken are based on irrelevant facts, while ignoring relevant considerations, such an action can normally be termed as “arbitrary”. Where the process of decision making is followed but proper reasoning is not recorded for arriving at a conclusion, the action may still fall in the category of arbitrariness. Of course, sufficiency or otherwise of the reasoning may not be a valid ground for consideration within the scope of judicial review. Rationality, reasonableness, objectivity and application of mind are some of the prerequisites of proper decision making. The concept of transparency in the decision-making process of the State has also become an essential part of our administrative law.

14. Action by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependent upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take in a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then differ from person to person and from situation to situation, even if the determinative factors of the situations in question were identical. This uncertainty must be avoided.

23. On a proper analysis of the principles stated by this Court in a catena of judgments including the judgment aforereferred, it is clear that the courts can issue directions with regard to the dispute in a particular case, but should be very reluctant to issue directions which are legislative in nature. Be that as it may, because of the new dimensions which constitutional law has come to include, it becomes imperative for the courts in some cases, to pass directions to ensure that statutory or executive authorities do not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily or contrary to the settled laws……”

39.4. In Jayrajbhai Jay

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

antibhai Patel (supra), Supreme Court held as under: “18. Having regard to it all, it is manifest that the power of judicial review may not be exercised unless the administrative decision is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or it shocks the conscience of the court in the sense that it is in defiance of logic or moral standards but no standardised formula, universally applicable to all cases, can be evolved. Each case has to be considered on its own facts, depending upon the authority that exercises the power, the source, the nature or scope of power and the indelible effects it generates in the operation of law or affects the individual or society. Though judicial restraint, albeit self-recognised, is the order of the day, yet an administrative decision or action which is based on wholly irrelevant considerations or material; or excludes from consideration the relevant material; or it is so absurd that no reasonable person could have arrived at it on the given material, may be struck down. In other words, when a court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power, and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the court to intervene. It is nevertheless, trite that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-making process and not the decision.” (emphasis supplied) 40. From the above decisions it emerges that if no reasoning is recorded in support of the decision by the administrative authority such decision can be interfered. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority is impermissible. Though authority is entitled to exercise its discretion, such exercise must be well considered and supported by reasons and non-interference is only thus far and no further. There can be no rubber-stamping of administrative authority action merely because he has discretion to take a view. 41. The decision of Public Service Commission dated 25.02.2020 is set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed and following directions are issued: (i) The Public Service Commission is directed to forward the name of the petitioner to the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health) within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment for appointment as Assistant Engineer against one of the 14 vacancies reserved to be filled up by Scheduled Caste category in the city cadre remained unfilled due to the candidate by name Sri S.Aravind Kumar not reporting to certificate verification; (ii) On receiving the proposals from the Public Service Commission, the Engineer-in-Chief (Public Health) shall take steps to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Engineer within four (4) weeks thereafter; (iii) It is made clear that such appointment has to be treated as fresh appointment. 42. Before parting with this case, the Court deems it necessary to place on record following aspect: (1) The stages of assessment of eligibility/suitability of a candidate for appointment, noticed in earlier paragraphs, takes place after the merit list is drawn by the PSC and forwards to the appointing authority. It appears, after the list is forwarded to the appointing authority, the PSC goes into loop line. The reason appears to be that not appointing/cancelling the appointment made from the list forwarded by the PSC is also treated as nonjoinder/ relinquished vacancy without noting the finer distinction between a candidate not joining the post after his appointment/ leaving the post after joining and not-appointing/cancelling provisional appointment due to ineligibility/bad antecedents, and there appears to be no interaction between PSC and the appointing authority on these aspects. (2) Even though this Court repeatedly held that G.O.Ms.No.81, and the ad hoc rule notified in G.O.Ms.No.544, are applicable only where person was already appointed but refused to join or person joined but immediately thereafter relinquished the post, the PSC ignores this aspect and does not undertake the exercise of drawing proper merit list, causing injustice to unemployees. From a cursory glance of merit list updated by the Engineer-In Chief (Public Health) in pursuant to the recruitment notification No.9/2015, it is seen that though several candidates did not report for certificate verification, their names were shown in the merit list and persons who secured next merit and eager to secure public employment were not added in the said list by replacing the candidates who did not report for certificate verification. After 2015 notification, in the next five years, no fresh recruitment process is initiated, and these vacancies go abegging for the last more than five years. This flawed understanding is the main problem. This needs serious consideration by the PSC. It may be desirable to have continuous interaction between the PSC and the appointing authority. It is hoped and expected that the PSC would bestow special attention to the manner of drawing merit list, duly taking note of the law on all aspects concerning recruitment. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

28-09-2020 M/s. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus T. Paul Raj National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
28-09-2020 S. Akhil & Another Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Thycaud & Others High Court of Kerala
25-09-2020 Dr. P. Vijila Versus The Secretary to Government Health & Family Welfare Department Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
24-09-2020 M. Premila Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Represented By its Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-09-2020 Bhilai Engineering Corporation Ltd., Through Madhavdas K., Authorised Signatory Bec Nandinin Road Industrial Area, Chhattisgarh Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Senior Divisional Manager, Chhattisgarh National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-09-2020 M/s. NTC Infra & Engineering Private Limited Represented by its Director S. Muthusamy, Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-09-2020 K.V. Xavier & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
11-09-2020 Shyam Investments, Rep. by its Partner Nina Reddy & Another Versus Masti Health & Beauty Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-09-2020 Devendra Prasad Boda & Others Versus Director, Pension & Pensioner Welfare Dept., Jaipur (Raj.) & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
08-09-2020 Jai Bharath College of Management & Engineering Technology, Rep. by Its Chairman, Ernakulam & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by Its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, Trivandrum & Others High Court of Kerala
03-09-2020 M/s. Khushee Construction through its Power of Attorney Holder, Patna Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
28-08-2020 Shifa Khairun Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to the Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-08-2020 Dr. Samjaison Versus The Deputy Director of Health Services, Ramanathapuram & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
25-08-2020 The Mining & Engineering Corporation Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
25-08-2020 Raj Pal Singh Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Haryana, Rohtak Supreme Court of India
21-08-2020 Pankaj Chaudhary, HCS, Special Secretary, Public Health Engineer Department Versus Union of India, through its Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
21-08-2020 P. Arumugasamy Versus The Secretary to Government/Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-08-2020 M/s. Metal Tubes & Rolling Mills, Marol Maroshi Road, Andheri (East) & Another Versus The Official Liquidator, Liquidator of Transpower Engineering Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-08-2020 Vectra Advanced Engineering Pvt Ltd & Another. Versus Union Of India Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence & Another. High Court of Delhi
13-08-2020 The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Higher Education, Chennai Versus Syed Ammal Engineering College, Rep. By its Administrative Officer, Ramanathapuram High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-08-2020 Karakapally Pusparaju Versus The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
11-08-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Prithvi Raj & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
07-08-2020 Kolambil Hamza Haji, Proprietor, Madeena Medicals, Kottakkal, Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary to The Health & Family Welfare Department, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
04-08-2020 S. Ganesan Versus The Commissioner, Department of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj, Chennai & Another Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-08-2020 The State Represented by its Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another Versus Dr. Marvin Manoah Baylis, Associate Professor, Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Tirunelveli & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
30-07-2020 Dr. Ambadan Rao & Others Versus State of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical, Health & Family Welfare, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
30-07-2020 Mahrishi Arvind Institute of Engineering, Rajasthan Versus Ranjit Singh & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 S. Sachin Narayan Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-07-2020 Cooner Institute of Health Care & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus Income Tax Officer Ward 6(3) High Court of Delhi
23-07-2020 Shinto Kuriakose Versus The State of Kerala, Represented by Its Secretary To Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
21-07-2020 Divya Gulati Versus State of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary Medical Health & Family Welfare Department, Velagapudi & Another High Court of Andhra Pradesh
21-07-2020 Branch Manager, Sahara India Dumraon Branch Buxar Bihar Versus Raj Kumari Devi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 Max Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Raveessh Aggarwal Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
16-07-2020 Country Side Realtors India Pvt Ltd. Versus The State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary Panchayat Raj Department Secretariat Building Saifabad Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
10-07-2020 Shailaja Madathil Valappil & Another Versus The State Level Authorization Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Health & Family Welfare Department, Represented by its Chairman, K.C. General Hospital, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
08-07-2020 Aryan Raj Versus Chandigarh Administration & Others Supreme Court of India
06-07-2020 K. Prem Chander & Another Versus M/s. Hella India Automotive Private Limited Formerly known as FTZ Engineering (P) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-07-2020 The Secretary to the Public Health, Department of Public Health & Family Planning, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Others Versus N. Ponni Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-06-2020 Sunil Raj, Corrected As Susil Raj (The Name of the Petitioner typed as “Sunil Raj” in the cause title of the Memorandum of Crl.M.C., Synopsis, Index and petition for Interim Direction and on The Docket is corrected as “Susil Raj” as per order dated 12.11.2019 in CRL.M.A.No.1/2019 in CRL.M.C.No.1797/2017.) Versus Gopan & Another High Court of Kerala
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 Santosh Singh Gehlot Versus State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan High Court of Rajasthan Jodhpur Bench
25-06-2020 Dr. S. Anusha Versus The Director of Medical and Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
23-06-2020 Rohini Gogoi (Under Suspension) Versus State of Assam Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Public Health Engineering Deptt. High Court of Gauhati
23-06-2020 Munna Lal Versus State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical & Health Lko & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
22-06-2020 M/s. New Green Medical Hall Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
19-06-2020 M/s. Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association Versus The Special Chief Secretary to Government Health Medical & Family Welfare Department Secretariat Hyderabad & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-06-2020 Prathyasa Mental Health Counseling Forum, Through Its Program Me Coordinator, George Sebastian, Thiruvananthapuram Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 Prithvi Raj & Others Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-06-2020 N. Krishnamoorthy Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayat Raj Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
17-06-2020 R. Murugan Versus The Deputy Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Institute of Public Health, Poonamallee, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-06-2020 Dr. K.M. Senthamizhselvan, State President, Ayush Medical Welfare Association, Thiruvannamalai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-06-2020 Raj Kumar Versus State of Chhattisgarh High Court of Chhattisgarh
15-06-2020 ISTTM India Private Limited Versus Engineering Staff College of India High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-06-2020 D. Sundarapandiyan Versus The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-06-2020 Dr. G. Gowthaman Versus The Joint Director, Medical & Rural Health Services, Tiruppur & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Raj Kumar Gupta Versus State of Sikkim High Court of Sikkim
27-05-2020 Sweta Raj (Female) Versus State of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
26-05-2020 Rajendra Kumar & Others Versus Raj Kumar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
22-05-2020 Patel Engineering Ltd. Versus North Eastern Electric Power Corporation Ltd. (Neepco) Supreme Court of India
22-05-2020 Suryadevara Venkata Rao Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
19-05-2020 Raj Shipping Agencies & Others V/s. Barge Madhwa & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
19-05-2020 The Director, Jubilee Mission Medical College & Research Institute, Trichur & Others Versus The State of Kerala, Rep. by The Secretary To Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-05-2020 G. Binu Raj Versus R. Sandhya Lakshmi High Court of Kerala
15-05-2020 New Zealand Health Trust & Another Versus Attorney-General Court of Appeal of New Zealand
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
11-05-2020 Posco Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Sinew Developers Pvt. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
11-05-2020 South East Asia Marine Engineering & Constructions Ltd. (Seamec Ltd.) Versus Oil India Limited Supreme Court of India
08-05-2020 V. Srinivas Chowdary & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Ravipati Nagasarala & Others Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, Secretariat, Amaravati & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
08-05-2020 Gaddam Koteswaramma Versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
06-05-2020 Assistant Commissioner (Ct) Ltu, Kakinada & Others Versus M/s. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited Supreme Court of India
06-05-2020 Hukum Chand Deswal Versus Satish Raj Deswal Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 S.K. Rout Versus Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 Neethu Narendran & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary To Government, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
28-04-2020 Praneetha Versus State of Karnataka, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Represented by its Principal Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2020 Dr. Mohd Fahad Khan & Others Versus Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2020 Dr. Mandira Sarkar & Others Versus State of Karnataka Department of Health & Family Welfare, Rep. by its Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2020 Dr. G.P. Arulraj Versus The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-04-2020 Kamal Parti Versus Raj Kumar Parti & Another High Court of Delhi
21-04-2020 Girish Bharadwaj Versus State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Health & Family Welfare & Another High Court of Karnataka
21-04-2020 State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Chikitsa Shiksha Evam Parshikshan, Government of U.P., Lucknow & Others Versus Dr. Raj Kamal Singh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
08-04-2020 India Awake for Transparency, Rep. by its Director, Rajender Kumar Versus The Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-04-2020 Anant Raj Limited Versus Yes Bank Limited High Court of Delhi
23-03-2020 Secretary to Government, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others Versus C. Vijayan & Another High Court of Kerala
20-03-2020 Ajay & Others Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
20-03-2020 Jangam Tilak Raj Versus State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
19-03-2020 Punithakumar Versus The Principal Health Secretary, Secretariat, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 M/s. COPCO Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Managing Director K. George Versus Southern Railway, Office of the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-03-2020 M/s. Rite Choice Foundations and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, C.K. Sridhar Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-03-2020 Dr. Balaji Versus Principal Secretary To Government, Health And Family Welfare Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Raj Mohhamad @ Razzii Versus State of HP & Another High Court of Himachal Pradesh
12-03-2020 Manjeet Kaur & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi