Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 817
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
Thripurala Suresh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6751 of 2020
Decided On : 11-08-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ramesh Chilla.
For the Respondent: M.V. Rama Rao.
The impermissibility of arbitrariness in State action, the necessity for proper decision-making process supported by reasons, and the requirement for uniform application of decisions to all similarly situated persons.
Headnote:
Training - Police Recruitment - Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 - Rule 9 - [Rule 9, Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999] - The court found that the decision of the respondents to drop the petitioner from the present batch of trainees on the ground that while on medical leave he was moving freely in the public, therefore, could have been infected with COVID-19 virus is invalid and illegal. The court held that the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner to resume training after medical leave was ex facie illegal, amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and authority, and was discriminatory which cannot be countenanced by the Court. The court also referred to various legal principles and precedents to establish the impermissibility of arbitrariness in State action and the necessity for proper decision-making process supported by reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a selected Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Reserve Police Constable, was prevented from resuming training after medical leave on the ground of suspected COVID-19 infection, leading to a legal challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the decision of the respondents to be illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, and directed the petitioner to be inducted for training along with the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables of Special Police Battalions whenever the training commences to them. The court also directed the respondents to continue to pay stipend payable to the petitioner till he is admitted to training in the next batch.
Issues: The main issue was whether the decision of the respondents to drop the petitioner from the present batch of trainees on the ground of suspected COVID-19 infection was valid and legal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioner to resume training after medical leave was ex facie illegal, amounted to arbitrary exercise of power and authority, and was discriminatory which cannot be countenanced by the Court. The court also referred to various legal principles and precedents to establish the impermissibility of arbitrariness in State action and the necessity for proper decision-making process supported by reasons.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order impugned was set aside, and the court issued directions for the petitioner to be inducted for training along with the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constables of Special Police Battalions whenever the training commences to them. The court also directed the respondents to continue to pay stipend payable to the petitioner till he is admitted to training in the next batch.
ORDER :
1. In the recruitment conducted by the Telangana State Police Recruitment Board, petitioner was selected as Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Reserve Police Constable (AR) and was deputed for training by assigning Chest No. 854 and Registration No. 1321209. The training commenced on 25.01.2020. On the ground of sickness, petitioner was pass-ported on 12.04.2020, initially for a period of six days. However, the medical leave was extended from 18.04.2020 to 22.04.2020. Thus, the petitioner was on medical leave for 11 days. After completion of the medical leave, when petitioner reported to the Academy, he was served with memorandum dated 29.04.2020 informing that as he was pass-ported out of the Academy and was on leave on medical grounds for 11 days, he should be on quarantine for a period of 28 days and therefore the total absence from training would be 39 days and therefore petitioner was advised to undergo training in the next batch. This memorandum is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. This Court by order dated 22.05.2020 directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to join back in the training. The petitioner was not admitted to training and praying to vacate the interim order, I.A. No. 2 of 2020 is filed. By the time the vacate petition and the writ petition are heard, petitioner lost more than four months of training out of nine months of total training.
3. Heard Sri. Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for respondents. With the consent of both learned counsel, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 9 of the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 notified vide G.O.Ms. No. 315, Home (Pol-C) Department, dated 13.10.1999, a person can avail leave on medical grounds up to 30 days in the entire training period, whereas petitioner was on medical leave only for 11 days. Thus, there was no justification in not admitting the petitioner to training. When petitioner was not diagnosed with COVID-19 virus, there was no reason to ask him to be quarantined for 28 days and treat the total period of absence from training as 39 days. All this is wholly illegal, without any justification and amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. He further contends that during the same period, person with Chest No. 806 was permitted to report back to training after medical leave and allowed to undergo the training. He further contends that another trainee with Chest No. 467 was also permitted to report back to training after medical leave. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that three candidates with Chest Nos. 651, 652 and 653 were admitted to training by the Special Protection Force on 03.08.2020, even though the training commenced on 11.01.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri. M.V. Rama Rao submits that as per the then prevailing Government instructions, whenever a person was suspected to be moving freely, there was every possibility for that person to be infected with virus and he should be quarantined for 28 days. As petitioner was out of the Academy for 11 days, it was suspected that he could have interacted with other people and if he was infected with COVID-19 virus, there was risk of spreading of virus in the Academy affecting all other trainees. Thus, in the interests of other trainees, petitioner was not allowed to report back to training and decision was taken to drop him from present batch and he would be deputed to training whenever next batch commences.
6. With reference to the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was illegally denied resumption of training, whereas other trainees were permitted to resume training, learned counsel for the respondents submits that person with Chest No. 806 was hospitalized from 24.04.2020 to 27.04.2020 due to injury suffered during the training. After he was discharged from the hospital, he was
