Recruitment advertisement creates no vested right; withdrawal of posts and regularisation of qualified temporary appointees may be valid.

An advertisement for recruitment does not create a vested right to appointment, so posts already advertised may be withdrawn from the Public Service Commission's purview under the proviso to Article 320(3). Temporary appointments made in public interest under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules may also be regularised where the appointees hold the prescribed qualifications and the appointments meet administrative exigencies; this is not inconsistent with the service rules or Article 16. The selection challenges were rejected, while candidates who had already participated were granted consequential relief through finalisation of the select list and priority appointment within the selection zone before outsider appointments.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether posts already advertised could be withdrawn from the purview of the Public Service Commission under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the regularisation of temporary Government servants under the impugned Government Order was invalid as being contrary to the service rules and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether posts already advertised could be withdrawn from the purview of the Public Service Commission under the proviso to Article 320(3) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The proviso to Article 320(3) empowers the Government to regulate matters in which consultation with the Public Service Commission is unnecessary. An advertisement inviting applications does not create any vested right to appointment; it only enables candidates to be considered. Therefore, the mere fact that applications had been invited and the selection process had commenced did not curtail the Government's power to withdraw the posts from the Commission's purview.

Conclusion: The withdrawal of the posts from the Commission's purview was valid and the challenge on this ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the regularisation of temporary Government servants under the impugned Government Order was invalid as being contrary to the service rules and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules permitted temporary appointment in public interest where immediate filling of vacancies in accordance with the rules would cause undue delay. The temporary appointees concerned possessed the prescribed qualifications, and the Government had made such appointments to meet administrative exigencies. In those circumstances, regularisation was held to be within the permissible legal framework and not a violation of the statutory rules or Article 16.

Conclusion: The regularisation of temporary Government servants was upheld as valid.

Final Conclusion: The legal challenges to the two Government Orders were rejected, but the candidates who had already participated in the selection were granted consequential relief by directing finalisation of the select list and priority appointment within the selection zone before outsider appointments.

Ratio Decidendi: An advertisement for recruitment does not confer a vested right to appointment, and the Government may validly regulate consultation with the Public Service Commission and regularise temporary appointments made under the service rules in appropriate circumstances.

---