IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
PULLA KARTHIK, J.
S. Sunil Prem Kumar & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public Health and Family Welfare Department, State Secretariat, Hyderabad & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 44489 of 2022
Decided On : 05-03-2024
CRA - Recruitment for Radiographer - Notification No.59 of 2017, G.O.Ms.No.282, G.O.Ms.No.565, and G.O.Ms.No.166 - The court set aside the selection of candidates without CRA and directed the authorities to fill vacancies in accordance with the notification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for the post of Radiographer as per Notification No.59 of 2017 and were initially placed in the merit list. However, the selection process was revised, and unofficial respondents were included, leading to the petitioners' exclusion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the selection deviated from the notification's criteria and was made without issuing any corrigendum, violating the principle that rules cannot be changed after the recruitment process has commenced.
Issues: The key issues were the deviation from the prescribed selection criteria, the inclusion of unofficial respondents, and the failure to issue a corrigendum to the notification.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the selection should have been made in accordance with the notification, and the inclusion of candidates without CRA, based on higher qualifications, without issuing a corrigendum, was impermissible.
Final Decision: The court set aside the selection of unofficial respondents and directed the authorities to fill vacancies strictly in accordance with 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.
K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Osmania University rep. by its Registrar, Hyderabad v. A. Sreenaiah
Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India
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....
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.