Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 816
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
M. Raj Sekhar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 7117 of 2020
Decided On : 11-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : D.V. Sita Ram Murthy for Avinash Reddy.
For the Respondents: D. Balakishan Rao, Vijaya Lakshmi.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that vacancies should not be treated as fallout vacancies if no appointment order was issued to a candidate in the select list for any reason, and that administrative decisions must be fair, reasoned, and transparent.
Headnote:
Public Service Commission - Appointment Dispute - G.O.Ms. No. 81, PSC Rules of Procedure - The court discussed the application of G.O.Ms. No. 81, the ad hoc rule, and PSC Rules of Procedure in the context of appointment disputes. It highlighted the legal principles established in previous judgments and emphasized the need for proper reasoning and consideration of relevant material in administrative decisions. The court set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission and directed the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer against the unfilled SC category vacancy.
Fact of the Case:
The Telangana State Public Service Commission issued a notification for the appointment of Assistant Engineers in various Engineering Subordinate Services, including Public Health and Municipal Engineers Subordinate Service. A dispute arose when a candidate claimed appointment in the vacancies reserved for SC category in the city cadre. The petitioner's services were terminated to accommodate the claimant, and the petitioner sought appointment against other unfilled SC category vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the vacancies in question were not fallout vacancies and should not be treated as such. It held that the petitioner, being the next meritorious SC candidate, was entitled to be appointed against the unfilled SC category vacancy. The court also emphasized the need for proper reasoning and consideration of relevant material in administrative decisions.
Issues: The main issue was whether the vacancies remained unfilled due to non-joining of selected candidates should be treated as fallout vacancies. The court also addressed the petitioner's challenge to the decision of the Public Service Commission rejecting his request for appointment against the unfilled SC category vacancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that vacancies should not be treated as fallout vacancies if no appointment order was issued to a candidate in the select list for any reason, including not reporting for certificate verification. It emphasized that denial of employment must be for valid reasons and that the decision-making process should be fair, reasoned, and transparent.
Final Decision: The court set aside the decision of the Public Service Commission and directed the appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Engineer against the unfilled SC category vacancy. It also highlighted the need for proper reasoning and consideration of relevant material in administrative decisions.
ORDER :
1. The facts, which are not in dispute, are as under:
The Telangana State Public Service Commission (for short ‘PSC’) issued Notification No. 09/2015 on 29.08.2015 calling applications from eligible candidates to make selections for appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer, in various Engineering Subordinate Services, including Public Health and Municipal Engineers Subordinate Service. This notification included 258 posts of Assistant Engineers in Public Health and Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service. Out of this, 144 posts were earmarked to be filled up in city cadre. In the city cadre vacancies, 14 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) category. Petitioner responded to the notification. In the selections conducted by the PSC, petitioner secured 169 marks. Petitioner was found eligible to be appointed against 14 vacancies reserved for SC category in city cadre. Accordingly, the PSC recommended his name to the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health to appoint the petitioner. Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in city cadre and on appointment, he was posted to work in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation.
2. While so, person by name Sri. Venkat Swamy Salade, who also participated in the selections and secured 170 marks, claimed appointment as Assistant Engineer in the vacancies reserved for SC category in the city cadre stating that he actually belonged to city cadre, but he was erroneously treated as belonging to Zone-VI. As the PSC did not accept his plea, he filed W.P. No. 42005 of 2016. Petitioner herein was arrayed as 3rd respondent in the said writ petition. W.P. No. 42005 of 2016 was allowed by judgment dated 19.12.2018. This Court held that Venkata Swamy should be treated as a candidate belonging to city cadre and he should be appointed as per the merit secured by him against SC category vacancy by displacing the petitioner herein. In compliance of the said judgment, petitioner's services were terminated and Sri. Venkata Swamy was appointed in his place. Aggrieved by the said judgment, petitioner preferred W.A. No. 482 of 2019, which is pending consideration before this Court.
3. After termination of his services, petitioner obtained information from the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health, and the PSC and found that two persons, who were included in the merit list at S. Nos. 19 and 87 Sri. S. Arvind Kumar and Sri. G. Anoop, respectively, were not appointed as Assistant Engineers; both belong to SC category of city cadre and, therefore, there were two clear vacancies on the day when judgment was rendered and when Venkata Swamy was appointed. Petitioner submitted his representation dated 15.06.2019 to the PSC stating as above, and requested the PSC to appoint him as Assistant Engineer in one of those two vacancies. Alleging that PSC did not consider the representation submitted by the petitioner, he filed W.P. No. 17516 of 2019. Said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents-PSC to pass orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner. In compliance of the said directions, by Memo dated 25.02.2020, petitioner was informed that he cannot be considered for appointment against those two vacancies in view of the Government Orders in G.O.Ms. No. 81 General Administration (Services-A) Department dated 22.02.1997 and in view of the provisions in PSC Rules of Procedure. It is stated in the Memo that the fallout vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of selected candidates should be notified in the next recruitment. Challenging the said decision of the PSC, this writ petition is filed.
4. Heard learned senior counsel Sri. D.V. Sita Ram Murthy for learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. D. Balakishan Rao, learned standing counsel for TSPSC and Mrs. Vijaya Lakshmi, learned Government Pleader for Services-III.
5.1. According to the learned senior counsel for petitioner, as on the date of judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. No. 42005 of 2016, there were two clear
