The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared Clause 33(ix) of a 2022 State Level Police Recruitment Board's (SLPRB) notification bearing Rc. No. 161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022,  issued for recruitment of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constables as arbitrary and unfair, as it barred the maintenance of a waiting list. 

The clause prohibited the maintenance of a waiting list and provided that vacancies arising from cancellation of provisional selection, adverse antecedents, lack of medical fitness, relinquishment, unwillingness to join or non-joining would be deemed to have lapsed.

In doing so, the Court directed the authorities to fill the 400 leftover vacancies in accordance with merit and reservation requirements within four months.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that the recruitment process could not be brought to an end at the stage of provisional selection when verification of original certificates, antecedents and medical fitness was yet to be completed.

The Court observed:

“It is a matter of common knowledge that the recruitment process starts with the issuance of a public notification calling for applications to fill-up notified vacancies and ends with the appointment of the eligible and meritorious. In the present notification, this logical culmination of the recruitment process is interdicted at the stage of provisional selection itself and a hands-off approach is adopted in the middle of the recruitment process. This goes against the very concept of recruitment notification and, in the opinion of this Court, appears to be an arbitrary condition. Though employers have the discretion to impose conditions in the recruitment notification, they must remain within the bounds of non-arbitrariness.

The candidates who are meritorious and have gone through the rigour of the selection process and miss out being included in the provisional selection list do aspire for consideration of their cases in all fairness. It is quite ironic that persons interested in joining the Police Department, notwithstanding the hard life, are not being considered for persons who relinquished and are uninterested in joining the service.”

The recruitment process originated from G.O.Ms. No. 153, Home (Services-IV) Department, dated October 20, 2022, through which the State Government proposed to fill 6,511 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil), Reserve Sub-Inspectors and Police Constables (Civil and Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP)).

Pursuant to this, the SLPRB issued the November 28, 2022 notification inviting applications for 3,580 Police Constable (Civil) posts for men and women, and 2,520 Police Constable APSP posts for men.

The selection process comprised four stages: a preliminary written test, Physical Measurement Test (PMT), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and final written examination.

Under Clause 20(E)(i), selection to Police Constable (Civil) posts (Post Code No. 21) was to be based strictly on relative merit, determined by marks obtained in the 200-mark Final Written Examination among candidates who qualified in the PET. This was subject to the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, and special representation for meritorious sportspersons, National Cadet Corps (NCC) candidates, ex-servicemen, Home Guards and children of Police Personnel.

In contrast, under Clause 20(E)(iii), selection to Police Constable APSP posts (Post Code No. 23) was to be based on marks obtained in the Final Written Examination and PET, carrying 100 marks each and totalling 200 marks.

Following the selection process, provisionally selected candidates were referred for verification of their original certificates, antecedents and medical fitness. Several candidates subsequently dropped out for reasons including selection in other departments and unwillingness to join the Police Department, leaving 400 posts unfilled.

The petitioners, who were next in merit and willing to join the Police Department, sought consideration against these vacancies. When the authorities rejected their requests by relying on Clause 33(ix), some candidates approached the High Court seeking consideration of their candidature, while others directly challenged the validity of the clause.

The petitioners contended that Clause 33(ix) was contrary to the applicable Ad hoc Rule and the interpretation previously placed on it by the courts. They argued that candidates who failed verification or withdrew before issuance of appointment orders could not be treated on par with candidates who relinquished their appointments after the orders were issued.

The State defended the clause by contending that the Board was not required to maintain a waiting list. It further argued that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process with open eyes, could not subsequently challenge the condition.

Examining these rival contentions, the High Court found an inherent contradiction between Clauses 25 and 33(ix). While Clause 25 made the selections provisional and subject to verification, Clause 33(ix) effectively gave finality to the provisional selection list irrespective of the verification outcome.

The Bench examined the appointment process under the Andhra Pradesh Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999. It noted that provisionally selected candidates first had to clear verification of their certificates, antecedents and medical fitness. They were then required to undergo nine months of induction training and pass the prescribed indoor and outdoor examinations, failing which they could be discharged without appointment.

The Court thus observed that provisional selection was only an initial stage, and appointment could still be denied on grounds of ineligibility, adverse antecedents, lack of medical fitness or failure to complete training.

It distinguished vacancies arising during preliminary verification from those arising after candidates had been sent for training. While there could be justification for not operating the merit list at the latter stage, refusing to consider the next meritorious candidate for a vacancy arising during verification was unfair.

“Public employment opportunities are limited, and recruitment notifications come occasionally; aspirants to the post of Police Constables, apart from preparing for the written examinations, must also be at their physical prime to qualify in the Physical Efficiency Tests (PET). The conditions in the recruitment notifications cannot be arbitrary as the right to be considered for public employment is a fundamental right and the denial of consideration for public employment should be on valid reasons, which substantially should relate to merit and not whimsical grounds”, the Court further emphasized.

The Court found no discernible rationale for imposing Clause 33(ix). At best, the court said, Clause 33(ix) provides some ease to the Respondents for closure of the recruitment process, but that can hardly be a ground and in matters of recruitment, the Clauses in the recruitment notification should aid the objective of the notification i.e., appointments to the notified vacant posts. 

It held that this could not justify a condition contrary to the objective of the notification and that the clause was arbitrary, irrational and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The Bench also rejected the State's contention that the petitioners could not challenge the clause after participating in the selection process. It observed that participation amounted to acceptance of the prescribed procedure, not of any illegality in it.

Further, the petitioners had no cause of action to challenge Clause 33(ix) before completing the selection stages and becoming entitled to consideration against the vacancies.

The Court traced the State's no-waiting-list policy to G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated February 22, 1997, which limited selections to notified vacancies and required subsequent vacancies to be notified in the next recruitment. The policy was later incorporated into an Ad hoc Rule dated December 4, 1998, framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution through G.O.Ms. No. 544, which similarly prohibited waiting lists and provided for leftover vacancies to be filled through subsequent recruitment.

However, the High Court clarified that this restriction applied to vacancies arising after appointment orders had been issued, where selected candidates subsequently relinquished their appointments or failed to join.

Accordingly, the Bench held that Clause 33(ix) exceeded the scope of the Ad hoc Rule by preventing the provisional merit list from being operated even when candidates dropped out before completion of verification. It therefore found the clause contrary to the applicable Ad hoc Rule as well.

The High Court consequently declared Clause 33(ix) of the November 28, 2022 recruitment notification arbitrary and unfair, directing the State authorities to fill the leftover vacancies in accordance with merit and reservation requirements within four months of receipt of the order.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Senior Advocates K.G. Krishna Murthy, K. Raghuveer, M. Vijay Kumar, Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, Bhagavan Gandhi; V. Satyanarayana Nekkanti and Shaik Abdul Siddiq.

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Services.


Tags: