Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 1005
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Abhinand Kumar Shavili and Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, JJ.
Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board – Appellant
Vs.
Banoth Suresh and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 789 of 2024
Decided On : 02-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M.V. Rama Rao
For the Respondents: Nayakawadi Ramesh and GP
The court ruled that while the respondent was more meritorious, creating a supernumerary post was unjustified; the appellant must accommodate the respondent in the next available vacancy.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Writ of Mandamus - The appellant challenged the order allowing the respondent's writ petition for appointment as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) despite all posts being filled - The court found a lapse in the selection process, noting the respondent was more meritorious than the selected candidate. (Paras 6, 10)
(B) Delay in filing - The court addressed the issue of delay in approaching the court, referencing a Supreme Court judgment but distinguishing it based on the facts of the case. (Paras 7, 10)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was selected as SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police and later sought appointment as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) claiming merit over a selected candidate. His representation was rejected due to delay and lack of objections during initial selection. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the respondent's claim but ruled against creating a supernumerary post, directing accommodation in the next available vacancy instead. (Paras 10)
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the learned Single Judge's order and the justification for creating a supernumerary post. (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the respondent was more meritorious, creating a supernumerary post was unjustified given all vacancies were filled. The appellant must accommodate the respondent in the next available vacancy. (Paras 10)
Result: Writ Appeal disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
Abhinand Kumar Shavili, J.
1. This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 27.12.2023, passed in W.P. No.5904 of 2023 by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Heard Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant had contended that respondent No. 1 had responded to a notification, dated 31.05.2018, issued by the appellant for filling up the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (for short, 'SCT') Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), SCT Sub- Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in Telangana State Special Police (for short, 'T.S.S.P.'), apart from other posts. Respondent No. 1 is a member belonging to BC-A community and he was also claiming reservation meant for NCC cadets. Respondent No. 1 was provisionally selected as SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police (T.S.S.P.) on 12.07.2019. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant has called for objections from 13.07.2019 to 15.07.2019 from the selected candidates as to whether there is any grievance in respect of their selections. Respondent No. 1 has not responded to such objections and he has successfully completed training programme and later, appointed as SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in T.S.S.P.
4. Learned counsel further contended that nearly after one year of his selection, respondent No. 1 has submitted a representation on 06.07.2020 contending that less meritorious candidate than that of him was selected as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) by the appellant and therefore, his case should be considered for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). The appellant had considered the said representation and rejected the same vide proceedings, dated 05.09.2020, on the ground that respondent No. 1 has not submitted any objections when they were called for at the time of his initial selection and that after undergoing training and nearly after one year, he has submitted a representation to consider his case for selection to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil).
5. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that in all 246 posts were notified in the category of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and the appellant has filled up all the posts and there are no vacancies. Learned counsel further contended that respondent No. 1 has not availed the opportunity of submitting his objections when they were called for at the time of initial selections and belatedly, that too, after completing training in the cadre of SCT Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police in T.S.S.P., he has submitted a representation. Therefore, the case of respondent No. 1 was rightly rejected by the appellant.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2020, respondent No. 1 has approached this Court by filing the subject W.P. No.5904 of 2023 i.e. nearly three years after rejection of his representation, contending that his case should be considered for appointment to the post of SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), as he is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate in the said post. The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide impugned order, dated 27.12.2023, was pleased to allow the subject Writ Petition and directed the appellant to appoint respondent No. 1 as SCT Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil), by creating a supernumerary post, as respondent No. 1 is more meritorious than that of the last selected candidate to the said post, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had further contended that the learned Single Judge has relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in K. Ashok v. State of Telangana and others1, but the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said judgment, the person who was selected under ex-ser
