IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SARATH, J.
Nigulapu Mounika – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.6930 Of 2020
Decided On : 31-01-2023
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 226 - Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 - Rule-12 (3) (a) – Service Law - Appointment - Post of Junior Assistant - Selection list - Held, judgments relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 do not apply to instant case, as there is a specific provision in Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules that as on date of Notification for direct recruitment should possess academic qualification and experience prescribed, if any - Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no power to relax and cannot replace Respondent No.3 in place of petitioner in selection list as Respondent No.3 obtained degree qualification after date of notification - Selection of respondent No.3 for the post of Junior Assistant under SC category in pursuance of Notification Ref. No issued by respondent No.1, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of condition 12 (3) (a) of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules and accordingly the same is set aside - Writ petition is allowed
ORDER :
This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
2. Heard Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Santapur Satyanrayana Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
3. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent issued notification vide Collector’s Ref. No.A2/240/2015 dated 20.06.2018 for the appointment of Junior Assistants/Typist in T.S Ministerial Services, Subordinate Services for limited recruitment of backlog vacancies of SC & STs in the District of Adilabad. In pursuance to the said notification the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant as she possess requisite qualifications as prescribed in the notification. After due process of selection the respondent No.1 provisionally selected the petitioner on 01.02.2020 under SC Women Quota at Serial No.3 and the same was also displayed on the Notice Board of the 1st respondent. Thereafter, the 1st respondent issued another Provisional Common List of Junior Assistants and Typist under SC/ST Backlog-2018, wherein the respondent No.3 is placed at Sl.No.789 though the respondent No.3 did not submit any certificates of Technical qualifications and mentioned in the remarks column that only degree certificate is filed. In the remarks column of the respondent No.3 at Sl.No.1326 of Provisional List reflects as ‘year wise and computer generated marks memo enclosed”, but the column of total marks and marks obtained does not show the marks at all.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 has not passed degree examination as on the date of notification as per 2 (b) of Annexure-I of the application for recruitment to the posts of Junior Assistant and Typist in T.S. Ministerial Services. Contrary to the said provision the respondent No.1 taken steps to issue appoint order to the Respondent No.3 by deleting the name of the petitioner, and requested to set aside the final selection list dated 07.03.2020 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 issue appointment order to the petitioner as Junior Assistant in view of provisional selection list of Junior Assistant for SC/ST category and requested to allow the writ petition.
5. The Learned Government Pleader for Services-II basing on the counter submits that as per the condition set by the notification, the respondent No.3 is eligible as on the date of notification for being appointed as Junior Assistant as her particulars are in compliance with the requirements of the notification and accordingly she was placed in the Provisional Final Selection list by replacing the petitioner. The application of the respondent No.3 is not in violation of condition No.2 (b) of Annexure. The remarks ‘yearwise and computer generated marks memo enclosed’ against her name in the provisional list dated 01.02.2020 has nothing to with her non-compliance with condition No.2 (b), this is
The court affirmed that the principles of reservation must be applied as per the existing regulations, distinguishing between horizontal and vertical reservations.
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.