10 December 1996
Supreme Court
Download

A.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs M. GOVERDHAN RAO

Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
Case number: C.A. No.-015553-015553 / 1996
Diary number: 78635 / 1996
Advocates: Vs S.. UDAYA KUMAR SAGAR


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. GOVERDHAN RAO & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       10/12/1996

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:             (WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO15552 OF 1996)                (Arising out of Special Leave              Petition (Civil) No.23193, of 1996)                         [CC 4114/96]                       J U D G M E N T      S.C. AGRAWAL, J.      Special leave granted.      Both these appeals are directed against the judgment of the  Andhra  Pradesh  Administrative  Tribunal  (hereinafter referred to  as "the  Tribunal")  dated  April  4,  1996  in Original Application  No. 1621 of 1994 filed by M. Goverdhan Rao, respondent  No. 1  in  both  the  appeals  (hereinafter referred to  as ‘the  applicant’).  The  matter  relates  to appointment  on   the  post   of  Assistant  Motor  Vehicles Inspector  in   the  Andhra  Pradesh  Transport  Subordinate Service.      In 1992  the Andhra  Pradesh Public  Service Commission (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  Commission’)  notified vacancies of  Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector and invited applications for  the said  post. In  response to  the  said notification the  applicant submitted  his application.  The applicant belongs  to a  backward class in Group ‘D’ and his application was  entertained as a local candidate of Zone V. Among  the   qualifications  prescribed   for  the  post  of Assistant Motor  Vehicles Inspector  is Degree in Mechanical Engineering of  Automobile Engineering  of a  University  in India  or   an  equivalent   qualification.  The   applicant possesses a  degree in  Master of  Sciences  in  Engineering awarded by  the State Commission of USSR. For the purpose of selection a  candidate has  to take a written test and those who are  short-listed after  the written test are called for an oral  test. The  selection is  made on  the basis  of the marks obtained  in the  oral test. The applicant appeared in the written  test and on the basis of his performance in the written test  by Memo dated January 27, 1994 he was asked to be present  along with his certificates on February 13, 1994 at 10.30 A.M. He reported on February 13, 1994 and was given a card  for oral  test scheduled  to be held on February 14, 1994. The name of the applicant was shown at serial No. 3 in the list  of candidates  called for oral test. When the name

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

of the  applicant was called for the purpose of oral test on February 14, 1994 he was asked to wait and was told that the question of  his eligibility  was under consideration. After all the  candidates had  been interviewed  the applicant was called for  interview.  In  the  final  list  of  candidates selected by the Commission the name of the applicant was not included.  He,  therefore,  moved  the  Tribunal  by  filing O.A.No.1621/94. In  the said petition the Tribunal, on April 12, 1994,  gave an interim direction that the applicant will be treated  as eligible  and included  in the  ranking  list according to  the marks  obtained by  him and  if  he  comes within the  list  of  selected  candidates  a  revised  list including his  name at  appropriate place  should be sent to the  Government   and  appointing   authority  who  may,  if necessary, adjust  the last  person in  the list against any additional vacancy  or remove  him from the list. Even after the said  direction  the  name  of  the  applicant  was  not included in the list of selected candidates.      The stand  of the  Commission before  the Tribunal  was that  since  there  was  doubt  as  to  whether  the  degree possessed by the applicant was recognised as equivalent to a degree in  Mechanical Engineering  or Automobile Engineering of the  universities in  India,  a  clarification  regarding equivalence was  sought from the Osmania University and that the Registrar  of Osmania University replied that the Degree of  Master   of  Science   awarded  by  Khorzov  Polytechnic Institute USSR  is not  recognised by the Osmania University so far  and  that  the  matter  is  being  referred  to  the Association of  India Universities, New Delhi for indicating the equivalence  of the  said degree  and that further reply was awaited  from Osmania University. Before the Tribunal it was further  stated on  behalf of  the Commission  that  the applicant had  secured 63  marks whereas  the last  selected candidate belonging  to the  backward class  Group ‘D’  from Zone V had secured 65 marks and that the applicant could not also come  up for selection as Non-Local as the cut off mark for selection  for Backward  Class Group  ‘D’ Non-Local  was also 65  marks. The  applicant thus  did not fall within the zone of  consideration for  selection either  as a  local to zone V  or non-local  due to  his low  marks and, therefore, even if  it is assumed that the applicant’s qualification is equivalent to  B.E. Degree,  it would not alter the position of the applicant in so far as this recruitment was concerned as he is not within the zone of consideration for selection.      In the  impugned judgment  the Tribunal has referred to the  communication   dated  June  27,  1967  issued  by  the Government of  India, in  consultation that the Union Public Service  Commission,   regarding  the   recognition  of  the Degree/Diplomas awarded  by the  Universities in USSR and as per that communication the Degree possessed by the applicant from  USSR   was  one  of  the  degrees  recognised  by  the government of  India. The  Tribunal has  observed that it is not a  recent recognition  and that  the Commission  must be having the  required information  as to  the equivalence  of the    qualifications    particularly    in    respect    of Degrees/Diplomas obtained from foreign universities and that the Commission  should be  having this material with them as otherwise they  would net  have  allowed  the  applicant  to appear for  the written test. The Tribunal has also observed that memos  were issued  in January  1994 to  the candidates short-listed for  oral interview,  including the  applicant, calling upon  them to  appear along  with their certificates before the Commission on February 13, 1994 and at that stage the Commission  was satisfied and directed him to appear for oral test  on February  14, 1994 and an objection was raised

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

for the first time when he was to be interviewed in his turn that the  Degree obtained  by him from an university in USSR was not  recognised and the matter was under correspondence. According to  the  Tribunal,  this  itself  shows  that  the applicant was not given a fair treatment. The Tribunal found force in  the contention  raised on  behalf of the applicant that if  the Commission had interviewed the applicant in his turn and  put questions along with other candidates he could have certainly  secured very high marks in the oral test and he might  have stood first among the candidates belonging to the same  group to  which he belongs and secured appointment and that  this aspect  should not have been brushed aside in the circumstances,  The Tribunal has held that the applicant was not  given a  fair  treatment  and  his  merit  was  not assessed objectively  and for that reason he was deprived of appointment. The  appellants have  been directed  to appoint the applicant  as Assistant  Motor Vehicles Inspector in one of the  existing vacancies  and  if  there  is  no  existing vacancy in  the next  vacancy that  may arise in the unit of appointment. Feeling  aggrieved by  the said decision of the Tribunal the  Commission as well as the Government of Andhra Pradesh have filed these appeals.      Shri Ram  Kumar, the  learned counsel appearing for the appellants in  both the  appeals,  has  submitted  that  the Tribunal was  in error in holding that the applicant was not given a  fair and objective treatment in assessing his merit and in  giving the  direction regarding  appointment of  the applicant on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. The learned  counsel has  urged that since there was a doubt about  the  equivalence  of  the  degree  possessed  by  the applicant with  the B.E.  Degree of  an Indian University, a clarification  was   sought  by   the  Commission  from  the Registrar of Osmania University and that the applicant, when he appeared  for the  oral test  on February  14, 1994,  was asked to  wait till  the clarification was received and that on the  same day the applicant was interviewed at the end of the interview  of other  candidates. The  submission is that merely because  the oral  interview  of  the  applicant  was postponed till the end does not mean that there has not been a  fair  and  objective  assessment  of  the  merit  of  the applicant. It  has been  submitted that having regard to the fact that  the applicant  has secured  63 marks and that the last candidates  belonging to  the Backward  Class ‘D’ Group who have  been selected  from Zone  V local  as well as non- local had  secured 65  marks, the  Tribunal was  in error in giving direction  regarding appointment  of the applicant on the post of Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector.      Shri Nageshwara  Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant,  was unable to justify the direction given by the Tribunal  regarding appointment  of the applicant on the post of  Assistant Motor  Vehicles Inspector.  Shri Rao has, however, submitted  that the  Tribunal has rightly taken the view that there has not been a fair and objective assessment of the  merit of  the applicant  on  account  of  his  being informed that  there was doubt about his eligibility and the matter was  under consideration  and on account of his being interviewed after  all the  candidates had been interviewed. The submission  of the  learned counsel  is that  telling  a candidate that  there is  doubt about  his eligibility  must have had  psychological  impact  and  would  have  certainly affected his  performance in  the oral  test and, therefore, this is  a fit case in which a special oral test may be held in so far as the applicant is concerned.      We find  it difficult  to subscribe to the view that on account his  being asked  to wait  for the reason that there

4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

was some  doubt about his eligibility and the equivalence of the degree possessed by him and his being interviewed at the end after  all the  candidates  had  been  interviewed,  the applicant has been denied a fair and objective assessment of his merit.  A fair and objective assessment of merit is made on the  basis of  performance at  the oral test and there is nothing on  record to  show  that  the  performance  of  the applicant at the oral test was adversely affected on account of  his  being  told  that  there  was  a  doubt  about  his eligibility and  the equivalence  of his  degree, We find no basis whatsoever  for the  observation of  the Tribunal that had the Commission interviewed the applicant in his turn and put questions  along with  other candidates  he  could  have certainly secured  very high  marks in  the oral test and he might have stood first among the candidates belonging to the same group  to which  he belongs and secured appointment. It is mere  speculation for  which there  is no  basis. We are, therefore, unable  to uphold  the view  of the Tribunal that the applicant  was not  given a fair treatment and his merit was not  assessed objectively.  In  the  circumstances,  the impugned judgment  of the  Tribunal cannot be upheld and has to be set aside.      The appeals are, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the Tribunal dated April 4, 1996 passed in O.A.No.1621/94 is set aside  and the  said O.A.  filed  by  the  applicant  is dismissed. But  in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.