IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
Porika Sucharitha – Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh Industries Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 229 of 2013
Decided On : 23-07-2024
Appointment - Manager (Electrical) - G.O. Ms.No. 544, dated 04.12.1998 - The court interpreted the G.O. to mean that waiting lists are not to be maintained, and vacancies must be filled in subsequent recruitments, influencing the decision to allow the petitioner's claim for appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, qualified for the Manager (Electrical) position reserved for ST women, was not considered for appointment despite being next on the waiting list after the original candidate did not join. Respondents appointed others, citing a G.O. that eliminated waiting lists.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the G.O. was misapplied by the respondents, as it only dispensed with waiting lists after appointment letters were issued. The petitioner was entitled to consideration for the position due to the discriminatory nature of the respondents' actions.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment as Manager (Electrical) despite the respondents' reliance on G.O. Ms.No. 544, which eliminated waiting lists.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the G.O. does not preclude consideration of the next meritorious candidate when the selected candidate fails to join, and that the respondents' failure to produce appointment letters undermined their position.
Result: The Writ Petition is allowed, directing the appointment of the petitioner as Manager (Electrical).
ORDER :
1. Respondents 1 to 4-Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited appointed Respondents 5 and 6 as Managers (Electrical) and (Engineering) without considering the candidature of petitioner, vide proceedings dated 23.05.2012. Seeking a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 to set aside the said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
2. Petitioner claims to have possessed B.Tech (Electrical and Electronic Engineering) in 2007 with 60.67%. Her case is that she has to be selected to the Post of Manager reserved for ST Women as the originally-selected person viz. Suseela did not turn up to join in the post and she being the next candidate in the waiting list, however, Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed as Manager (Electrical). Petitioner therefore, filed Writ Petition No. 8808 of 2012, wherein this Court passed the order dated 29.03.2012 directing the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Manager (Electrical) reserved for ST women if her name is at serial No. 1 in the waiting list, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondent did not implement the said order which prompted her to file Contempt Case No. 725 of 2012. The Contempt Case was closed leaving liberty to petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Respondent, if she is aggrieved by the same.
It is also stated that the official respondents rejected the claim of petitioner vide letter dated 23.05.2012 on the sole ground that she is not eligible for appointment to the post of Managing (Electrical) as per G.O. Ms.No. 544, dated 04.12.1998. According to petitioner, the said G.O. was issued in 1998 but Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed in 2010 and the official respondents admitted in Para 5 of the counter filed in Contempt Case that the contention raised by petitioner in Para 11 of her affidavit that one B. Madhu, who is the 1st candidate in the waiting list was appointed in the place of Venugopal in SC Category and one Sri M. Dora Babu who was kept in waiting list was appointed in OC category is true, but it related to earlier recruitment of 2008 wherein the waiting list was prepared for the recruitment. The G.O. was issued in 1998 but the above persons were appointed against G.O.Ms No. 544, dated 04.12.1998. Petitioner’s case was not considered only on the sole ground that she is not eligible as per GO Ms.No. 544.
Petitioner contends that appointment of Respondents 5 and 6 is illegal and against the principles of natural justice and G.O.Ms.No. 544, dated 04.12.1998 and her case was not considered though the post was reserved for ST (Women). It is stated that both the Central Government and State Government provide special rule of reservation in favour of SCs., STs. for upliftment of downtrodden and since the subject post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (women), not filling up the post with woman is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural Justice. Hence, the Writ Petition.
3. Petitioner had taken out I.A. No. 3 of 2015 seeking amendment of prayer. By order dated 03.04.2024, the said Application was ordered directing amendment of prayer to the effect that ‘rejecting the claim of petitioner vide Lr.No. 53719/PW/APIIC/2010, dated 23.05.2012 as being arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint petitioner to the post of Manager (Electrical) in the respondent Corporation’.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited by its General Manager, it is stated that Smt. N. Susheela, who was provisionally selected for the post of Manager (Electrical) under ST (women) category did not join duty, hence, petitioner made Application dated 15.06.2011 seeking appointment as such. It is stated that in the present recruitment, pursuant to the notification and interview, no waiting list of the candidates se
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointing authority cannot deny appointments on whims and must act in accordance with the rules and with justifiable reasons. The judgmen....
If a selected candidate joins and resigns within a period of currency of waiting list, a wait listed candidate would have a right to claim appointment and this very proposition also appears to have b....
Candidates on a valid waiting list have a right to appointment if vacancies arise during its validity, and arbitrary denial of such appointment violates constitutional rights.
The obligation of respondent authorities to consider waiting list candidates for appointment when vacancies remain unfilled from the select list, as per the advertisement clause and legal precedents.
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.