SC Refuses Stay on Andhra Pradesh DSC Recruitment Exam: Candidates Must Approach High Court, Says Bench
- ByAdmin --
- 16 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The Supreme Court of India has declined to grant a stay on the ongoing Andhra Pradesh District Selection Committee (DSC) recruitment examination, stating that the petitioners must first approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court for relief. The apex court emphasized the principle of judicial hierarchy and procedural propriety in rejecting the plea for interim relief.
Background of the Case
The Andhra Pradesh government announced the DSC recruitment process to fill over 6,000 teacher posts in government schools. The recruitment drive, aimed at addressing teacher shortages across districts, saw opposition from a group of petitioners who raised concerns about eligibility, procedural irregularities, and alleged violation of reservation norms.
The petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking immediate intervention and a stay on the examination process. They alleged that the recruitment notification and procedure violated constitutional and statutory provisions, potentially infringing upon the rights of meritorious and marginalized candidates.
What the Supreme Court Said
A vacation bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, took up the matter and ruled that the petitioners should exhaust their remedies at the High Court level before approaching the apex court.
“This Court cannot entertain Article 32 petitions as the first recourse when appropriate High Courts are functioning and competent to hear such matters,” the Bench observed.
The court refused to interfere at the interim stage, allowing the recruitment exam process to continue as scheduled.
Legal Basis for the Decision
The ruling relied on key constitutional and procedural principles:
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India provides that High Courts can issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights as well as for any other purpose.
- Article 32, while a fundamental right to constitutional remedy, is not meant to bypass the High Court when effective remedies exist.
- The Court reaffirmed the precedent laid down in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997), which upheld the primacy of High Courts in exercising judicial review over administrative and quasi-judicial decisions.
The Court further cited its long-standing principle that interim relief must be sought first before the appropriate jurisdiction, especially when the matter involves state-level recruitment or administrative policies.
Key Concerns Raised by Petitioners
- Violation of Reservation Policy: Allegations were made regarding non-compliance with reservation percentages for SC/ST/OBC candidates.
- Discrepancies in Notification: Petitioners claimed lack of clarity and late issuance of corrigenda.
- Eligibility Norms: Changes in qualification requirements were alleged to be arbitrary and exclusionary.
- Unfair Timelines: The examination dates were said to leave inadequate preparation time for candidates from rural and disadvantaged backgrounds.
However, the Supreme Court noted that these issues fall squarely within the administrative domain of the State and are best addressed first by the State High Court through judicial review under Article 226.
Implications of the Ruling
- Recruitment Continues Uninterrupted: With no stay granted, the AP DSC exams will proceed as per the official schedule, providing relief to thousands of aspirants already registered.
- High Court as First Forum: This reiteration strengthens the procedural protocol that petitioners must follow judicial hierarchy, barring exceptional urgency or direct fundamental rights infringement.
- Boost to State's Education Agenda: The ruling enables Andhra Pradesh to move forward with filling vacant posts critical for rural and semi-urban school infrastructure.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of procedural propriety and jurisdictional discipline in judicial matters. While the petitioners may still raise their grievances in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the apex court has made it clear that recruitment processes, especially of large public interest, cannot be halted without compelling and urgent justification.
As the exam proceeds, all eyes will be on how the High Court addresses the substantive concerns, if and when the petitioners reapproach it.
RELATED Blog
0 comments