J APHC010267112021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 623 OF 2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the orders in WP. No. 16320/2020. dated 23.03.2021 on the file of the High Court. Between: The Regional Director of Municipal Administration and Chairmen Regional Level Committee, Anantapur. ...Appellant/Respondent AND 1. R Ramanjaneyulu. S/o R Narendra, Aged 26 years. Ward Education and Data Processing Secretary, Kadiri, Anantapur District, R/o 3-26-64, Tharakaramapuram, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. . . Respondent /Writ Petitioner 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Amaravati, Guntur District. Secretariat Building, Velagapudi, 3. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Selection Committee, Rep by its Chairmen / District Collector, Anantapur District Anantapur. Administration, / 5. C Sreevidya, D/o. C. Eswara Reddy, D.No.6-5, Gajjalavandlapal li, Gndlapenta, Ananthapur-515521. ...Respondents/Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 stay the operation of the orders in WP.No. 16320 of 2020, Dt.23-03-2021 pending disposal of the writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP for SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRI MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No. 5: SRI PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR The Court made the following order: APHC010267112021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3545] FRIDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL NO: 623/2021 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent set aside the orders of the learned single judge passed in WP. No. 16320/2020, dated 23.03.2021 and pass. Between: . 1.THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND CHAIRMEN REGIONAL LEVEL COMMITTEE, ANANTAPUR. ...APPELLANT AND 1.R RAMANJANEYULU, S/O R NARENDRA, AGED 26 YEARS, WARD EDUCATION AND DATA PROCESSING SECRETARY, KADIRI, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, R/0 3-26-64, THARAKARAMAPURAM, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. RESPONDENT /PETITIONER IN WP.NO.16320/2020. 2.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ‘’3.THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2 4.THE DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS CHAIRMEN / DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT ANANTAPUR. ESWARA REDDY, D.NO.6-5, GAJJALAVANDLAPALLI, GNDLAPENTA, ANANTHAPUR-515521. ...RESPONDENT(S); 5.C SREEVIDYA, D/0 C. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 stay the operation of the orders in WP.No.16320 of 2020, Dt.23-03-2021 pending disposal of the writ appeal and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. GP for Village and Ward Secretariats Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP for Village and Ward Secretariats 2.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI 3.PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR The Court made the following: to 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & ' THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.623 of 2021 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order, dated 23.03.2021 in W.P.No.16320 of 2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 2. Both the parties in the Appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petition for convenience. 3. The case leading to the filing of the present writ appeal is as hereunder: nd respondent/ (i) The case of the writ petitioner is that the 2 Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration had issued notification No.04/2019, dated 26.07.2019 to fill up 3,786 posts in 13 districts in the State, calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in A.P. Municipal Ministerial Subordinate Services. A merit list of qualified candidates has been notified declaring that a total of 1,735 candidates were qualified in the written test. The petitioner’s name stands at serial No.1455. After certificates verification, the 4‘^ respondent has issued an order of appointment to the petitioner on 08.01.2020 offering appointment. But no posting orders were issued for a period of 20 days and in the interregnum period, he was forced to submit an undertaking, dated 22.01.2020 to the respondents that he will not raise any objection over the final merit list of candidatesunder the sports quota to be communicatedby the 4 Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh and that he is liable to be terminated at any time without any prior notice and that he will not claim any seniority in the cadre of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary, if his I considered for promotion, (ii) While things stood thus, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, a shpw-cause notice, dated 29.08.2020 was issued by the 4^'' respondent stating that the District Collector and Chairman, GS/WE DSC, 2019 has , approved and forwarded the meritorious sports candidates list of six members and requested the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Ananthapuramu to issue appointment orders to them and to cancel the appointment order of the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit his explanation within three days to the show-cause so as to why his appointment I order issued earlier shall not be terminated as per the conditions specific in condition (xv) (a,b,c) of the appointment order, dated 08.01.2020. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.09.2020. The 3'"' respondent has passed order in Roc.No.757/2p19/A2, dated 08.09.2020 cancelling the , appointment of the petitioner and terminating him from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the writ petition. 4. The respondents filed their counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the case IS petitioner. 5. The learned Single Judge of this Court after having detailed I consideration of the issue involved in the writ petition and upon careful examination of the material available on record including the authoritative 5 pronouncements on the issue involved in the writ petition, allowed the writ petition by order, dated 23.03.2021 declaring that the proceedings in Roc No.757/2019/A2, dated 08.09.2020 issued by the 3'^^ respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, set aside the same with a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary in pursuance of his selection based on merit in the first list. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, the State preferred the present writ appeal. 7. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the 1®‘ respondent/writ petitioner. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Village and Ward Secretariat appearing for the appellant would submit that as there were many Secretary posts (all categories of posts) left unfilled as on 30.10.2019, Government has made a policy decision to add 15 bonus marks to all the applicants, to bring more candidates into eligible criteria, so that, maximum posts can be filled up. i In this regard. Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.166 Panchayat Raj & Rural Department, dated 30.10.2019 duly explaining the reasons for adding grace marks to all the candidates. Because of the policy decision from the Government, new merit list with updated ranks was sent to the District Collector’s Login (being the Chairman, District Selection Committee) and the selection process was continued with new list. Thereby, the District Selection Committee added 15 bonus marks and on account of 15 bonus marks to 20 6 candidates in meritorious sports quota, they were referred to Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh and the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh found that candidates are more meritorious than the petitioner, thereby they were entitled to be appointed as Ward Education & Data Processing Secretaries. Learned I Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner was at serial No. 18 in the list of sports merit persons, whereas the posts are six in number, thereby the petitioner was terminated from services as he become ineligible on account of addition of 15 bonus marks and he was terminated from the service ' based on the conditions incorporated in the appointment order and undertaking, dated 22.01.2020 furnished by the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader further contends that the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable since the writ petitioner is less meritorious candidate for the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary and he is not I within the Zone of consideration of under sports merit as per the existing vacancies. He would submit that the writ petitioner was appointed pending the finalization of sports merit, and after announcement the sports merit, the writ petitioner become less meritorious candidate, hence his appointment ' cancelled after duly following the necessary procedure. As such, the order of the learned single Judge is not sustainable. He further contends that the appointment of sports candidate is absolutely within the ambit and guidelines envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 09.08.2012, hence the petitioner being a less meritorious candidate of sports category, he cannot sought for continue in the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary since his was 7 appointment is purely conditional subject to outcome of sports merit, as such, the order of the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside. He further , contends that total number of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary posts notified under sports quota are six and accordingly 20 candidates called for certificates verification and the same was forwarded to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh so as to verify the sports merit for short listing the eligible candidates under sports quota against notified vacancies. The 5*^ respondent stood at 6*'^ place and whereas the petitioner stood as 18''" place, therefore, absolutely the petitioner cannot equated that he is replaced with 5^*^ respondent. Finally, learned Government Pleader would submit that the termination of the petitioner is only in compliance of the conditions « incorporated in the ,letter of posting and undertaking and it is in accordance with law and accordingly he would submit that the order of the learned single Judge of this Court is liable to be set aside by allowing the writ appeal. 9. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that when the notification No.04/2019, dated 26.07.2019 did not prescribe addition of marks, such, preparation of second list and cancellation of appointment of the petitioner after second list for definite reasons known to. the Selection Committee, after completion of entire recruitment process and issuance of appointment order to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unjust. On the ‘ pretext that 17 candidates become more meritorious than the petitioner after adding 15 bonus marks to them and preparing second list and cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner is put to serious loss and as such as 8 f the order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner further submits that imposing such conditions for cancellation in the posting order and adding 15 bonus marks after selection process basing on the first list is over is nothing but change in the rules after I game is over which is impermissible under law and in the light of the law declared by the Apex Court in catena of judgments. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the learned single Judge of this Court has passed reasoned order as per the law laid down by the Apex ' Court and as such interference of this Court into the learned single Judge order is unwarranted and sought to dismiss the writ appeal. 10. This Court gave anxious consideration to the submissions made by respective counsel appearing on either side and carefully examined the material available on record. I 11. The admitted facts are that the 2"^ respondent had issued Notification No.04/2019, dated 26.07.2019 calling for applications for recruitment of 3,786 posts of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary A.P. Municipal Ministerial Subordinate Services. Written test was held on 08.09.2019 for the eligible applicants. Results were announced on 20.09.2019. The writ petitioner secured rank of 1455. The 5*'' respondent name is not included in the list as she is not qualified. After verification of the sports certificates, the 4**^ respondent has issued an order of appointment to the petitioner on 08.01.2020, but posting orders were not issued for a period in 9 of 20 days. It is the allegation of the petitioner that he was forced to submit an ^ undertaking, dated 22.01.2020 to the respondents and thereafter on 28.01.2020 the petitioner was posted at Kadiri Municipality as Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary. As per G.O.Ms.No.166 Panchayat Raj & Rural Department, dated 30.10.2019, the Government has decided to add 15 bonus marks to all the applicants to bring more candidates into eligible criteria to fill nd up maximum posts. By adding 15 bonus marks to all the candidates, the 2 list was prepared at the district level by the District Selection Committee. As per newly prepared list released on 01.11.2019, more number of candidates availing sports quota have come into picture and new list of candidates applied under sports merit in the updated list (after adding 15 grace marks) were sent to Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh. On the pretext that .17 candidates become more meritorious than the petitioner, his selection was cancelled. The 4^^ respondent initiated proceedings to cancel the appointment j of the petitioner and issued show-cause notice, dated 29.08.2020 calling for explanation of the petitioner so as to why his appointment should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 02.09.2020. Thereby, on 08.09.2020 the proceedings were issued by the 4 respondent cancelling the appointment of the petitioner. 12. Admittedly, the petitioner possessed requisite educational qualification, eligibility and he is a graduate in Computer Science for selection to the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary as prescribed in para No.3 of the notification. Accordingly, he made application pursuant to the 10 Notification No.04/2019, dated- 26.07.2019 and appeared for written examination and his name was included in the qualified candidates list of 1735 candidates and the petitioner stands at serial No. 1455. As the petitioner claiming reservation under sports quota, his services were referred to the Andhra Pradesh Sports Authority and basing on the same he is found as meritorious and accordingly he was selected and appointment order issued on 08.01.2020. At that stage, as number of posts are unfilled, the Government took a decision to add 15 bonus marks to all the candidates to bring more into eligible criteria and issued G.O.Ms.No.166, Panchayat Raj & Rural Department, dated 30.10.2019. Basin on adding 15 bonus marks, a new merit list with updated ranks was notified and the selection process taken up with new list. After adding 15 grace marks in Ananthapuramu District, 20 candidates were came into consideration under sports quota and as per the report of the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh, 17 candidates shown as more meritorious than the petitioner. On 24.02.2020, updated list of meritorious sports persons have been received from SAAP and based on the said list, appointment orders were issued to the eligible candidates for 60 posts under sports quota. On the pretext that the petitioner name was not present in the top 16 meritorious'sports persons, he was given notice before termination and subsequently termination orders were issued invoking the conditions mentioned in the undertaking given by the petitioner and conditions imposed in the posting order. was was 11 13. While deciding the writ petition, the learned single Judge of this Court has considered the following issue: “Whether incorporation of condition No. (xv) in appointment letter vide Roc.No.757/2019/A2/DSC-2019, dated 08.01.2020 issued by Respondent No.2/Regional Director of Municipal Administration & Chairman, Regional Level Committee, Anantapur and obtaining an undertaking, dated 22.01.2020 amounts to change of rules after completion of selection process. If so, whether termination of the services of this petitioner based on changed rules of selection process is illegal and invalid. If so, order of termination impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set-aside?” 14. On perusal of the notification, procedure of selection specified in para-13 of the notification, the learned single Judge opinioned that only one selection list strictly adhering to the merit is to be prepared and the authority did not reserve any right to add any bonus marks to any category under reservation to prepare second list based on marks in the event of vacancies available and to prepare the second list on addition of bonus marks in the event of vacancy available or to refer the meritorious sports persons to the Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh after addition of 15 bonus marks. The learned single Judge also noted that obtaining an undertaking, dated 22.01.2020 from the petitioner and incorporation of conditions in condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in the appointment order, dated 08.01.2020 are conspicuously absent in the notification, dated 26.07.2019. Accordingly, it is held that all these acts of the respondents ^re invented subsequent to completion of selection process and after issuing letter of 12 appointment/posting to the petitioner. The learned single Judge also held that when the notification did not confer Committee, awarding bonus marks and any power on the District Selection preparing second list is nothing but change of rules of recruitment process after recruitment is completed. Since obtaining an • agreement, incorporation of conditions in the letter .of appointment, dated 08.01.2020, to deprive the employment to the candidates who were already selected in the selection process as per the merit list and t such subsequent conditions are invalid and illegal as declared by the learned single Judge. 15. The learned single Judge has considered various decisions of the Apex Court and High Court of Andhra Pradesh in (1) Sachin Kumar & Ors. V. r Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) & OrsJ; (2) NT. Bevin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission^; (3) B.N. Nagarajan & Ors. V. State of Mysore & Ors.^; (4) Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Swapna'* and (5) K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh® wherein it is held that change of rules after completion of selection I process and after issuance of appointment order and posting order to the petitioner by incorporating certain terms and conditions in appointment order, dated 08.01.2020 and obtaining undertaking which was not prescribed in the notification is a serious illegality.. Accordingly, it is held that such change of ^ rules of selection process is not legal and valid and thereby the subsequent Civil Appeal Nos.639-640 of 2021 dated 03.03.2021 'air 1990 SC 1233 '(1966) 3 SCR 682 '*(2005) 4 see 410 (2008) 3 see 512 13 cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner based on the subsequent conditions/rules for selection process is an arbitrary act of the respondents and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. I 16. I 16. On perusal of the order of the learned single Judge and the terms and conditions of the notification No.04/2019, dated 26.07.2019 only selection list of merit candidates has to be prepared and the respondents herein did not vest with any right of any bonus marks to any category under reservation to prepare second list by adding bonus marks, if the respondents intents to fill up maximum posts by bringing more candidates into eligible criteria by adding some bonus marks to the unqualified candidates, it is for the respondents to take such decision by following due process of law. But, after notifying the merit list of qualified candidates at first instance and after issuing I appointment order to the petitioner basing on that list, thereafter issuing second list after adding 15 bonus marks and reviewing the entire qualified ca'ndidates list by including 1735 qualified candidates (i.e.,) who are declared as qualified at earlier point of time in the second list is nothing but changing the rules after game is over. The learned single Judge rightly held that the short cut method adopted by the respondents to terminate the services of the petitioner vide impugned order taking advantage of condition No.(xv) of the terms and conditions in the appointment order, dated 08.01.2020 and undertaking, dated 22.01.2020 obtained by the respondents from the I petitioner is totally unfair and since the subsequent conditions incorporated for the first time in the posting letter enabling the respondents to cancel the one 14 selection of any particular candidate or termination of services even without notice is a condition incorporated, which is not prescribed any qualification, thereby, it is invalid and illegal in view of the law declared by the Apex Court. This Court has left with no other option except to accept the opinion of the learned single Judge as it is based on the law laid by the Apex Court in the decisions stated supra. 0 17. As such, in our considered view, finding of the learned single Judge of this Court that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner by I issuing proceedings is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioner is deprived of his livelihood acpount of his termination from the post of Ward Education & Data Processing Secretary is perfectly right as per the settled law and no valid legal grounds ^ are raised by the appellant to interfere into the same. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, this writ appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 23.03.2021 Jn W.P.No.16320 of 2021. on 19. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.S.V.NAVEEN CHANDRA DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to Sri. Manoj Kumar Bethapudi Advocate [OPUC] 2. OneCCto Sri. Pamarthy Rathnakar Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:19/09/2025 ORDER WA NO. 623 OF 2021 C£ ^ 2 ^ SEP 2025 O Co DISMISSING THE WA WITHOUT COSTS