Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
J. Devender - Petitioner
Versus
Telangana State Public Service Commission and Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 28180 of 2018
Decided On : 30-10-2023
ST RESERVATION - VETERINARY ASSISTANT - G.O.Ms.No.64, SOCIAL WELFARE (V) DEPARTMENT, DT. 04/04/1988 - LOCAL MEMBERS OF SCHEDULED TRIBES - DISTRICT AS UNIT OF APPOINTMENT - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY TO ST CANDIDATES OF NON-AGENCY AREAS - HELD, DISTRICT IS TO BE RECKONED AS LOCAL AREA AND THE DISTRICT HAS TO BE TAKEN AS UNIT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONFINED TO A PARTICULAR AREA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a member of the ST Lambada Community, applied for the post of Veterinary Assistant pursuant to Notification No.30/2017 issued by TSPSC. He obtained 107 marks in the written examination and was provisionally selected. However, his candidature was not considered for appointment on the ground that he did not belong to the ST Agency Area of Mahabubabad District and did not submit an ST Agency Area Certificate. Petitioner challenged this decision, relying on judgments of the High Court holding that the unit of appointment for ST reservation is the District and not a sub-classification of STs residing in scheduled and non-scheduled areas.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the plea of the TSPSC that in Scheduled Areas, candidature of members of local Scheduled Tribe candidates alone has to be considered is contrary to the letter and spirit of the judgments of the High Court in W.P.No.14591 of 2006 and W.P.No.1651 of 2014. The Court held that the District is to be reckoned as the local area and the District has to be taken as a unit, and the same cannot be confined to a particular area.
Issues: Whether the requirement of ST Agency Area Certificate for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant in Scheduled Areas is applicable to ST candidates of non-agency areas of the same District.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the judgments of the High Court in W.P.No.14591 of 2006 and W.P.No.1651 of 2014, which held that the unit of appointment for ST reservation is the District and not a sub-classification of STs residing in scheduled and non-scheduled areas. The Court held that the term "local members" appearing in G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 16.04.1988, has to be understood in the context of the expressions "local area" and "local candidate" as indicated in the Presidential Order, 1974 issued under Article 371D of the Constitution. The Court held that if the unit of appointment is a District, the local area for appointment to such a post would be the District and a person residing in that area is a local member.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the TSPSC to consider the petitioner's representation for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant pursuant to Notification No.30/2017, dated 02.06.2017 issued by the TSPSC as per petitioner's own merit in the existing/unfilled vacancies on the analogy of orders of appointment issued in respect of certain other individuals.
ORDER :
Heard Mr J.Devender, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr D.Balakishan Rao, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/ TSPSC and learned Government Pleader for Services III.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the Writ of Mandamus by declaring the action of the respondent in not considering the claim of the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant pursuant to the notification No.30 of 2017 as per his merit on par with others with all consequential benefits.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
b) The 1st respondent issued notification calling online application from qualified candidates vide notification No.30 of 2017.
c) The petitioner applied for the said examination, appeared for the said examination and obtained 107 marks as per key published by the Public Service Commission.
d) The petitioner is physically handicapped with 43% of disability in respect of left lower limb.
e) The petitioner’s case, however, was not considered for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant. Hence, aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. Counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondents, in brief, is as follows:
b) The petitioner does not belong to ST Agency Area of Mahabubabad District. There is no agency area in Mahabubabad to consider the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits.
5. The contenton of the respondents 2 to 4 as per the Counter affidavit filed, is as follows:
The vacancies were notified vide notification No.30 of 2017, dated 02.06.2017 and the selection of petitioner is concerned, it is under the purview of TSPSC, Hyderabad being recruiting agency. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
PERUSED THE RECORD
6. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1, in particular, paras 7 to 9, read as under:
iv) Reservation to local S.T candidates of scheduled areas (Agency area).
As per G.O.Ms. No.64, Social Welfare (V) Department, Dt. 04/04/1988, the post of Veterinary Assistants in Animal Husbandry Department shall be filled in, in the Scheduled Areas of Telangana State only by the local members of the Scheduled Tribes, not withstanding anything contained in any other Order, Rule or Law in force.
8. In view of the above, I respectfully submit that the petitioner herein does not belong to ST Agency Area of Mahabubabad District (Which was under erstwhile Warangal Dist
The unit of appointment for ST reservation is the District and not a sub-classification of STs residing in scheduled and non-scheduled areas.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
