APHC010159562019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) S THURSDAY. THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6910 OF 2019 Between: Jyakaran Vedamanickam, S/o Vedamanickam, Aged about 35 years, R/o No. 16, Annanagar, Sholingur Raod, Pallipat, Tiruvallur District, Tamilnadu State. 631 207 ...Petitioner AND 1. Government of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi. 2. School of Planning and Architecture, Sy.No.4/4, ITI Road, Vijayawada 520 008 Rep. by its Registrar. 3. The Selection Committee for the Selection of Assistant Professors, School of Planning and Architecture, Sy.No.4/4, ITI Road, Vijayawada 520 008 Rep. by its Chairman. 4. Ms Nina Gupta Assistant Professor, S/o not known to the petitioner, 5. Shri Rajeev R, Assistant Professor, S/o not known to the petitioner, 6. Ms Jivantika Satyarthi Assistant Professor, S/o not known to the petitioner, 7. Ms Ekta, Assistant Professor, S/o not known to the petitioner, (The Address of respondents 4 to 7 for service of All summons etc., is The School of Planning and Architecture, Sy.No.4/4, ITI Road, Vijayawada 520 008). ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the / circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction order or orders declaring the selection process adopted by the respondents 2 and 3 is vitiated due to adopting the procedure of awarding marks in the interview not contemplated in the recruitment notifications and denying to the petitioner the appointment as Asst. Professor Planning as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, violation of Principals of Natural Justice and void and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in Planning Department of the 2nd respondent institution. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to produce the records of selection and the petitioner I may be appointed as Assistant Professor in planning Department of the 2nd respondent as he is meritorious. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file letter no. SPAV/Admn/RTI/2018 dated 13-06-2019 as additional material paper for proper adjudication of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M VIJAY KUMAR REPRESENTING SRI T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1: DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: DR P B VIJAY KUMAR & SRI O UDAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MS. ANJALI GUPTA & SRI MUDE SAI KUMAR NAIK Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 & 7: SRI CHALLA AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010159562019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) H [3396] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 6910/2019 Between: Jyakaran Vedamanickam ...PETITIONER AND Government Of India and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.T JANARDHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.CHALLA AJAY KUMAR 2.(SC FOR A U )DR P B VIJAY KUMAR 3.MUDE SAI KUMAR NAIK 4.A VS LAXMI The Court made the following: ORDER: ...RESPONDENT{S) This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “ to issue a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction, order or orders declaring the selection process 2 adopted by respondents 2 and 3 as vitiated due to adopting the procedure of awarding marks in the interview not contemplated in the recruitment notifications and thereby denying the petitioner the appointment as Assistant Professor (Planning), as wholly arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, in violation of the principles of natural justice and void; and consequently direct respondents 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor in the Planning Department of the 2nd respondent institution and pass such other and further orders ” 2. Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri T. Janardhan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for the 1st respondent; Dr. P. B. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3; Ms. Anjali Gupta, learned counsel for the 4th respondent; and Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7. The challenge in this writ petition is against the selection process adopted by respondents 2 and 3, particularly in awarding marks in the interview stage which was not contemplated in the recruitment notification, thereby depriving the petitioner of selection for the post of Assistant Professor (Planning). Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a well-settled principle that the selection process should not be changed midway without prior intimation to the candidates. The original notification issued in 2017, later updated on 05.06.2018, stated that the written examination would 3. consist of 50 multiple choice questions for 50 marks. The petitioner secured 3 the highest marks in the written examination. However, the final selection process deviated substantially from what was originally prescribed. 4. Learned Senior Counsel finally submits that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has begun or concluded, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 see 512. In that case, the Court invalidated the selection process where viva voce marks were introduced without prior notification. The Supreme Court emphasized that any criteria adopted must be clearly communicated in the advertisement and followed scrupulously. This principle has been reaffirmed in the recent Constitution Bench judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 INSC 847, wherein it was held that fairness, transparency, and non-arbitrariness are foundational to any public recruitment process. The Court reiterated that changing criteria mid-way or introducing new benchmarks post facto undermines Article 14 and violates the legitimate expectations of candidates. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that eligibility and suitability are distinct considerations. The Selection Committee is empowered to prescribe norms for determining suitability. While the eligibility criteria remained unchanged, the procedural modification regarding assessment cannot be termed arbitrary. Respondent No.6, a woman belonging to the S.C. category, was considered more meritorious and was selected. It was further submitted that the recruitment 4 process was followed in accordance with the notification and that no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Learned counsel for respondents 5 and 7 contended that they have no role in the recruitment process. They adhered to the procedure outlined in the notification and followed directions issued by the competent authorities. Their inclusion in the merit list was based solely on merit and suitability. The claim of the petitioner has no bearing on their appointments. Respondent No.4 submitted written representations evidencing her qualifications and experience, based on which the Selection Committee found her eligible and appointed her. it is also submitted that respondent No.6, after appointment vacated the post. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notified 7. procedure was altered subsequently. The web notification mandated a written examination of 50 questions for 50 marks, requiring 50% as qualifying marks. This alone was to be the basis for shortlisting candidates for interview. However, the method of measuring merit, as ultimately applied, was not informed to candidates and needs to be scrutinized by this Court. He urged the Court to direct appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Planning). 8. After considering the submissions and examining the record, the issue for determination is: 5 Whether respondent No.2 had notified any change in the process of evaluating merit to the candidates prior to concluding the recruitment pursuant to the notification dated 05.06.2018? 9. The question does not require much deliberation. The final notification dated 05.06.2018 clearly specified that the written test would consist of 50 multiple choice questions for 50 marks. The qualifying marks were also prescribed. Based on the written test, a list of qualified candidates published for interview scheduled on 27.09.2018. The petitioner, who scored 40 marks, topped the S.C. category in the written exam, while respondent No.6 secured 37 marks. The petitioner also secured 28 marks in the interview per RTI data. Respondents placed on record Annexure-VII showing the selection matrix applied by the Committee. was as 10. For ready reference, the relevant columns in the said list are hereby extracted; SI.No. 23 Application No. 18P3017 18P3060 Identity No. AR-91/PL-11 PL-45 Name Ms.Jivantika Satyarthi Shri Jayakaran Vedhamanickam Category SC SC Bachelors out of 15 11.2 10.88 6 Masters Degree out of 15 12.76 9.99 Ph.D out of 6 0 0 Exp.out of 2 2 2 Papers out of 2 0 0 Written 14.8 test 16 Max.20 marks Out of 60 marks 40.76 38.87 28.0 Interview 28.0 Max.40 marks Total out of 100 68.76 66.87 marks 1®Mn SC category 1®‘waiting in SC category Remarks 11. The above data reveals that the written test, originally of 50 marks, was scaled down to 20 marks. Additionally, academic qualifications such as Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees were also given weightage, despite not being mentioned in the notification. This revised process runs contrary to the settled law. In K. Manjusree (supra), the Court held that if the selection process does not mention awarding of marks for academic qualifications or a revised weightage formula, then applying such criteria retrospectively is impermissible. In the present case, the original notification did not mention any such assessment components. 7 Likewise, the Constitution Bench in Tej Prakash Pathak (supra) observed that recruitment bodies must act within the contours of the 12. advertised procedure. Modifying the evaluation matrix without updating the notification or issuing a corrigendum violates the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.2 placed reliance on Tej Prakash Pathak, where the Supreme Court examined a deviation in prescribed minimum qualifying marks and aggregate score requirements introduced mid-process. The Court unequivocally held such changes to be illegal in the absence of statutory or rule-based authority. Para 14 of Umesh Chandra, which was reiterated in Tej Prakash Pathak, to reinforce the 13. principle that additional eligibility filters post-examination amount to unlawful amendment of rules. It reads thus; “30. It was found that the Selection Committee had moderated the written examination marks by an addition of 2% for all the candidates, .as a result of which some candidates who did not get through the written examination, became eligible for viva voce and came into the list. Secondly, the Selection Committee prescribed for selection, a minimum aggregate of 600 marks in the written examination and viva voce which was not provided in the Rules and that resulted in some of the names in the list of 27 being omitted. This Court held neither was permissible. Dealing with the prescription of minimum 600 marks in the aggregate this Court observed : {Umesh Chandra case supra, see pp. 735-36, para 14) “14. ...There is no power reserved under Rule 18 of the Rules for the High Court to fix its own minimum marks in order to include candidates in the final list. It is stated in Para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition 4363 of 1985 that the Selection Committee has inherent power to 8 select candidates who according to it are suitable for appointment by prescribing the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate in order to get mto the Delhi Judicial Service. ...But on going through the Rules, we are of the view that no fresh disqualification or bar may be created by the High Court or the Selection Committee merely on the basis of the marks obtained at the examination because clause (6) of the Appendix itself has laid down the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the written papers or in the aggregate in order to qualify himself to become a member of the Judicial Service. The prescription of the minimum of 600 marks in the aggregate by the Selection Committee as an additional requirement which the candidate has to satisfy amounts to an amendment of what is prescribed by clause (6) of the Appendix. Committee has no power to prescribe the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the aggregate different from the minimum already prescribed by the Rules in its Appendix. We are, therefore, of the view that the exclusion of the names of certain candidates, who had not secured 600 marks in the aggregate including marks obtained at the viva voce test from the list prepared under Rule 18 of the Rules is not legal. I ...We are of the view that the Selection Therefore, the reliance placed by the respondent on Tej Prakash Pathak is actually favourable to the petitioner. It strengthens the case that any post-notification change in evaluation metrics, especially one that disadvantages meritorious candidate cannot be sustained. The respondent’s deviation from the declared method undermines the -sanctity of public recruitment and warrants judicial interference. 14. In light of the above discussion and legal position, this Court is of the view that, subsequent alteration of the notified procedure by scaling down the marks in the written examination affects the merit of the candidates, as is 15. happened in the case of the Petitioner herein. The contention of respondent 9 No.2 that the selection was conducted as per the notified procedure cannot be* sustained. The deviation from the original notification is substantial. Moreover, respondent No.6 has already vacated the post. No other selected candidate has challenged the recruitment. Hence, cancellation of the entire process is not warranted. The petitioner, being next in merit and in the same category, is entitled to appointment. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Respondents 1 to 3 are 16. directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Planning) from the date of joining of other selected candidates, with notional seniority. However, the petitioner shall be entitled to monetary benefits only from the date of actual joining. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellarieous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi. 2. The Registrar, School of Planning and Architecture, Sy.No.4/4, ITI Road, Vijayawada 520 008. 3. The Chairman, Selection Committee for the Selection of Assistant Professors, School of Planning and Architecture, Sy.No.4/4, ITI Road, Vijayawada 520 008 . 4. One CC to Sri T Janardhan Rao Advocate [OPUC] 5. One CC to Sri Challa Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri DR P B Vijay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 7. One CC to Sri Ms. Anjali Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to Sri Mude Sai Kumar Naik Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to Sri A V S Laxmi Advocate [OPUC] 10. One CC to Sri Pasala Ponna Rao, Deputy Solicitor General of India, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OPUC] 11. Two CD Copies TF HIGH COURT DATED:19/06/2025 ORDER WP NO. 6910 OF 2019 ALLOWING THE W.P., WITHOUT COSTS