IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Pulla Karthik, J.
S.Sunil Prem Kumar and others - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department and others - Respondents
Writ Petition No.44489 of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2024
CRA - Radiographer Selection - Notification No.59 of 2017, G.O.Ms.No.282 - The court discussed the qualifications prescribed for the post of Radiographer, the deviation from the notification in the selection process, and the legal principles governing the recruitment process. The court emphasized that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced and set aside the selection of certain candidates based on higher qualifications not specified in the notification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for the post of Radiographer as per Notification No.59 of 2017, but the selection process deviated from the notification, leading to their exclusion from the final selection list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection process deviated from the notification, and the inclusion of candidates with higher qualifications without issuing a corrigendum was contrary to the settled principles of law.
Issues: The issues included the deviation from the notification in the selection process, the consideration of higher qualifications without a corrigendum, and the violation of the rules of the game after the recruitment process had commenced.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced and set aside the selection of certain candidates based on higher qualifications not specified in the notification.
Final Decision: The selection of unofficial respondent Nos. 3 to 5 vide final Selection list, dated 01.12.2022, was set aside, and respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to fill-up the vacancies strictly in accordance with the Notification No.59 of 2017.
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:
ii) To call for the records or orders passed by the 2nd respondent enabling the candidates other than who has Certificate of Radiology Assistant CRA under the premise of Expert Committee report after the issuance of notification no 59/2017 dated 08.11.2017 which was informed to the petitioners as an answer to the RTI application dated 29.05.2019 and issuing selection list in accordance with the said proceedings by enabling ineligible candidates into the selection zone vide dated 01.12.2022 as illegal arbitrary against the principles of natural justice violative of article 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and against the notification no 59/2017 dated 08.11.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent and to declare the said selection list is running contrary to the notification no 59/2017.
iii) To declare the action of respondent no 2 in not considering the representations of the petitioners dated 12.03.2019 and 16.03.2021 as illegal arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
iv) To consequently direct the 2nd respondent to strictly adhere to the notification no 59/2017 dated 08.11.2017 and recall and revise the selection list dated 01.12.2022 by excluding the candidates without CRA and further direct the respondents to declare the petitioners are selected to the said posts in accordance with the notification and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard Sri Srikanth Chintala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Goda Siva, the learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.Goda Ramalakshmi, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 5, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Ram Gopal Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Telangana State Public Service Commission.
3. It has been contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in response to the notification issued by respondent No.2 vide Notification No.59 of 2017, dated 08.11.2017, the petitioners have applied for the post of Radiographer in Director of Public Health and Family Welfare and appeared for the written test with hall ticket Nos.179001097, 1759000226 and 1759000385 respectively and petitioner No.1 was placed at Sl.No.138, petitioner No.2 at Sl.No.45 and petitioner No.3 at Sl.No.44 in the merit list published on 03.01.2019. But, surprisingly, the respondent No.2 published a note dated 09.02.2019 stating that request of certain persons for adding weightage marks was considered and one week before the certification i.e. before 26.02.2019 and released another “Revised Merit List” with Qualification and Service Weightage” in which, the names of unofficial respondents were shown above the names of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the petitioners went down in the revised merit list. However, the petitioners were shown up in the Provisional List of candidates for verification of certificates @ 1:3 ratio on 22.02.2019. Further, aggrieved by the revised merit list, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 have submitted representations on 02.03.2019, 12.03.2019
Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa
K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve
Osmania University rep.by its Registrar, Hyderabad v. A.Sreenaiah
The main legal point established is that the selection process must adhere to the criteria specified in the notification, and any deviation without issuing a corrigendum is impermissible.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
Interpretation of qualification rules - The Certificate of Radiological Assistant (CRA) qualification should be considered as a single unit, with or without Science in Higher Secondary Course, if can....
The court established that merit lists for public appointments must strictly adhere to the prescribed guidelines, and any deviation that introduces favoritism or lacks transparency is subject to judi....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct interpretation of the qualification rules for the post of Dark Room Assistant, specifically the proviso in G.O.Ms.No.385.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process for the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officer must be in accordance with the prescribed procedure, fair-play, and justice, a....
A selection candidate's eligibility must be assessed based on relevant experience by the cut-off date; next in merit must be considered if the selected candidate cannot hold multiple appointments.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.