ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. - (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) THE Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission') calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirming the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short the Tribunal'). The controversy involved in the present appeal arises in the following background: 3.1. The appellant-Commission by its advertisement no. 13/94 dated 17.1.1995 advertised for filling up 8 posts of Assistant Public Relations Officers: Subsequently, 7 more vacancies were advertised. Therefore, the recruitment was made for 15 vacancies. There were 5 zones namely, Zones I to V for which selections were to be made in the following manner: JUDGEMENT_468_JT3_2005Html1.htm The short abbreviations used above are: Open category-OC, Backward Classes-BC and Scheduled Tribe-ST. As noted above, amongst backward classes there were further sub-classifications i.e. BC-A, BC-B and BC-C. 3.2. The selections were finalised on 2.7.1996. 3.3. According to respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as 'applicant') she was placed at serial no. 1 in the wait list which is disputed by the appellant-Commission. At that point of time, the Andhra Pradesh Service Commission (Procedure) Rules (in short the 'Rules') were applicable and the existing Rule 6 was as follows: "The ranking list prepared by the Commission for selection in a direct recruitment shall remain in force for a period of one year from the date on which the selection list is published on the Notice Board of the Commission or till the publication of the new selection list whichever is earlier. The Commission may select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who do not join duty within the time given and also new requisitions sent by appointing authority. However, the Commission shall have the right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded." 3.4. The wait list was valid for a period of one year. There was amendment to Rule 6 w.e.f. 30.7.1997 and the amended Rule reads as follows: "The list of the candidates approved/selected by the Commission shall be equal to the number of vacancies only including those for reserve communities/categories notified by the Unit Officers/Government. The fall out vacancies if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment." 3.5. According to the applicant during the period of wait list the competent authority again notified 14 vacancies on 14 4.1997 and these vacancies ought to have been filled up by the candidates from tne wait list. She claimed that she was entitled for appointment. The applicant moved the Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The same was disposed of with the following direction: "In the circumstances after hearing both sides and on perusal of the material placed on record, the 1 st respondent is directed to send the list of the candidates selected in Zone-l V to the Government, as indicated in the letter no.5088/Amn. 1 -3/98 dated 11.5.1998 a copy of which has been marked to the Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission without any further delay to the 3rd respondent at any rank within one week from the date of receipt of this order. The 3rd respondent thereupon should examine the same and take a decision on the appointment of the applicant respectively. The 1st respondent should examine the list to be sent relating to Zone IV of the candidates selected to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly with the above directions at the admission stage. No costs." 3.6. The aforesaid direction as quoted above was challenged by the Commission by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the appellant to forward the name of applicant-respondent no.1 to the Government for appointment to the concerned post. The High Court was of the view that though the Rule was amended w.e.f. 30.7.1997, it was applicable to the present dispute and the wait list was operative for the period of one year and even during that period if any fall out vacancy has arisen and any new appointments are to be made for fresh vacancies, they should be filled up by the candidates from the wait list. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-Commission submitted that trje High Court's approach was clearly erroneous. It is a conceded position that the un amended Rule 6 was applicable to the facts of the case. The appellant-Commission had clearly directed the Government to advertise afresh. Though the Commission had the option to select candidates from the ranking list in force in place of those who relinquish the selection or who did not join the duty within the given time and also new requisitions sent by appointing authority, the Commission at the relevant point of time had the right to freeze any ranking list for reasons recorded. The fact that the Commission had directed issuance of fresh advertisement was clearly indicative of the fact that the Commission did not want the ranking list to be given effect to. This is borne out from records. In any event, there is a dispute as to whether the applicant was at serial no. 1 in the wait list.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant-respondent no.1 on the other hand submitted that though it was the un-amended Rule which was applicable and not the amended rule as was held to be applicable by the High Court, yet there was no material before the Tribunal or the High Court to show that the appellant-Commission had directed freezing of the ranking list. According to him, no other person had staked any claim and even if it is conceded for the sake of arguments that respondent no.1-applicant was not at the top of the ranking list, that would not make any difference because others had not staked any claim. Her case can be considered in the peculiar facts of the case by relaxation of norms. There are two principles in service laws which are indisputable. Firstly, there cannot be appointment beyond the advertised number and secondly norms of selection cannot be altered after the selection process has started. In the instant case 15 posts were to be filled up. The vacancies in the different zones were as follows: JUDGEMENT_468_JT3_2005Html2.htm ;