Telangana Public Service Commission Can't Relax Technical Conditions Under Rule Which Permits Correction Of Clerical Errors In Merit List: High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) exceeded its authority by relaxing the condition of educational qualification for recruitment of Assistant Engineers in the Roads and Buildings Department, after the initial declaration.The court emphasized that the revision did not fall under the purview of Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules, which only...
The Telangana High Court has held that the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) exceeded its authority by relaxing the condition of educational qualification for recruitment of Assistant Engineers in the Roads and Buildings Department, after the initial declaration.
The court emphasized that the revision did not fall under the purview of Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules, which only permits correction of clerical or arithmetical errors. It thus held that TSPSC's action violated the principles of fairness and transparency in public appointments.
“Therefore, the respondent No.1 was not within its power under Rule 20(b) of TSPSC rules to revise the selection list. What is permitted under Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules is only “right to correct any clerical, typographical, arithmetical or other mistakes in the merit list, selected list etc.” The relaxation of the condition of educational qualification or technical condition is not a clerical or arithmetical mistake which can be corrected by TSPSC. The TSPSC is only a recruitment agency and it is for the employer, who has to specify the qualifications for a post and the qualifications mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.58, cannot be relaxed by TSPSC under Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules.”
The dispute stemmed from a recruitment notification issued by TSPSC for the position of Assistant Engineer in the Roads and Buildings Department. The petitioner participated and was initially declared provisionally selected. However, the TSPSC subsequently revised the selection list, excluding the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that this revision was illegal and arbitrary. They argued that the TSPSC had erroneously included candidates in the revised list who possessed qualifications equivalent to DOAECC (Department of Electronics and Accreditation of Computer Courses), a qualification not explicitly mentioned as a requirement in the recruitment notification. The petitioner asserted that the TSPSC had overstepped its authority by considering qualifications not specified in the original notification and that this violated their right to fair consideration.
Conversely, the TSPSC defended its decision by relying on Rule 20(b) which allowed it to correct errors in the selection list. The TSPSC argued that the revised list was justified as it included candidates who possessed qualifications equivalent to those required for the position, including those with DOAECC certification. They maintained that this interpretation was valid and did not violate any rules or regulations governing the recruitment process.
The Court clarified that the equivalent qualification mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.58 refers solely to Diploma certificates in computer applications and not to qualifications equivalent to DOAECC.
“On a literal reading of G.O.Ms.No.58, dated 01.05.2002, it is seen that there is no provision to treat the candidates having qualification equivalent to DOAECC as eligible candidates. The equivalent qualification was only with regard to the Diploma certificate in computer applications awarded by the APSBTET and not the DOAECC Society under the Ministry of Information Technology, Government of India.”
Lastly, The Court, in its observation, emphasized the limited scope of Rule 20(b) of TSPSC Rules, stating that it only permits the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors in the selection list. This implies that the revision of the selection list to include candidates with qualifications equivalent to DOAECC was beyond the purview of this rule, as it did not involve rectifying mere calculation mistakes or typographical errors.
Thus the petition was allowed, the revised selection list issued by the TSPSC was set aside and the direction was given to appoint the petitioner pursuant to his provisional selection list.
Case title: LAKAVATH ROJA vs. The Telangana Public Service Commission & Ors.
Case number: WP(TR) 6110/2017
Counsel for petitioner: CH VENKAT RAMAN
Counsel for respondent: M RAMGOPAL RAO SC FOR TSPSC