Article 226 | Mandamus Cannot Be Issued Contrary To Statutory Recruitment Rules In Absence Of Specific Challenge To Their Validity: Andhra Pradesh High Court

"Without there being any pleadings to show in what manner there is repugnancy between the two provisions and without challenge to the statutory rules, no such repugnancy can be presumed." Andhra Pradesh High Court, in an authoritative pronouncement dated October 16, 2026, held that a writ court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a Mandamus directing appointments contrary to statutory recruitment rules without a specific challenge to the constitutional validity of those rules.

A Division Bench comprising Justice D. Ramesh and Justice A. Hari Haranadha Sarma observed that when statutory recruitment rules explicitly provide that the order of preference exercised by an applicant at the time of application submission is final and binding, candidates who are allotted a post based on their declared first preference forfeit any claim to other cadres, even if they secure higher marks on a merit-cum-roster basis.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and the District Selection Committee had challenged a batch of orders passed by a Single Judge directing them to consider the respondent-candidates for appointment to the higher post of School Assistant (SA) based on their merit ranking. The respondents had applied for multiple posts under the AP Mega DSC-2025 notification and had voluntarily marked the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) as their first preference and School Assistant as their subsequent choice. After being selected and appointed as SGTs in accordance with their declared first choice, the candidates approached the High Court seeking consideration for the post of School Assistant by invoking the merit-cum-roster principle.

The core legal questions before the Division Bench were whether a writ of Mandamus could be issued directing the recruiting authority to consider candidates for an alternative post based on merit contrary to their declared preferences without a challenge to the statutory rules, and whether the Single Judge erred in reading down Rule 10(iii) of the Andhra Pradesh Scheme of Selection Rules, 2025 on the ground of an alleged conflict with Rule 3(iii).

Writ Court Cannot Presume Repugnancy Without Specific Challenge To Statutory Rules

Addressing the maintainability of the writ petitions in the absence of a constitutional challenge, the Division Bench noted that the Single Judge erred in undertaking an exercise of reading down statutory rules when the petitioners had merely sought a Mandamus without assailing the validity of the provisions.

Relying extensively on the Supreme Court's ruling in Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh (2023), the Court observed that a writ court ought not to go into issues of repugnancy or lack of legislative competence in the absence of specific pleadings and without notice to the Advocate General.

The Bench reiterated the settled position that there is a presumption of constitutionality in favour of statutory provisions, stressing that without holding a rule constitutionally invalid, courts cannot direct recruiting bodies to ignore it.

"Without holding that the statutory provisions are not constitutionally valid, the High Court could not have issued a direction not to implement the statutory provisions."

Recruitment Rules Explicitly Make Declared Preferences Final And Irrevocable

Examining the Scheme of Selection Rules, 2025 notified vide G.O.Ms.No.15 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Bench held that the shortlisting and allotment mechanism was governed strictly by Rule 10(iii). The Court noted that Rule 10(iii)(b) and (c) explicitly provide that the options exercised in the online application are final and cannot be changed subsequently.

Furthermore, Rule 10(iii)(e) and (f) provide that once a candidate falls within the zone of selection for multiple posts, selection is made strictly as per the priority option, and upon being selected for that post, the candidate forfeits the opportunity to be considered for any remaining posts.

The Court pointed out that the State had even provided an online editing window between April 20, 2025, and May 15, 2025, alongside extensive awareness campaigns cautioning candidates that preferences were final, yet the respondents consciously retained SGT as their first preference.

Candidates Cannot Turn Around To Seek Post Alteration After Participating In Selection

The Division Bench placed reliance on the Supreme Court precedent in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale, where an identical clause governing post preferences was upheld. The Bench observed that a candidate who applies under a definite recruitment scheme without demur and furnishes an undertaking cannot subsequently seek an alteration of the post to the detriment of other selected candidates.

The Court also invoked the doctrine laid down in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court and K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., holding that the rules of the recruitment game cannot be altered after the process commences.

It was held that the recruiting agency, having received over 5.77 lakh applications for 16,347 posts, adopted a rational and non-discriminatory shortlisting methodology that strictly adhered to the statutory framework.

"The candidate concerned had applied without demur and also furnished a declaration with regard to correctness of details provided. He cannot thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment of others."

Merit-Cum-Roster Applies Only After Shortlisting Based On Declared Preference

Rejecting the argument that Rule 3(iii) mandating merit-cum-roster overrides the preference mechanism in Rule 10(iii), the Bench clarified the precise operational interface between the two provisions. The Court held that Rule 3(iii) is attracted only after shortlisting candidates based on their declared preferences under Rule 10(iii)(b), and it cannot be transposed to dismantle the preliminary preference-based filtering.

The Bench emphasized the principles governing judicial review highlighted in Anurag Kumar Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, observing that courts cannot exercise judicial discretion to issue directions that fly in the face of statutory rules.

Because the recruiting authorities strictly adhered to Rule 10(iii) across all categories without any discrimination or procedural deviation, the Single Judge committed a jurisdictional error in directing consideration for the School Assistant posts contrary to the rules.

Setting aside the Single Judge's directions, the High Court held that granting relief to candidates contrary to the statutory rules and their declared preferences would severely disrupt concluded selections across multiple cadres. The Division Bench accordingly allowed all the writ appeals filed by the State and dismissed the writ petitions preferred by the candidates.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2026