HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.8363 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri D. Laxminarayana, learned Party-in-

person, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner approached this Court seeking the prayer as under:

“…to issue a Writ or order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1 and 2 Respondents in not forwarding the letter of the 3^rd Respondent to the 4^th Respondent Chief Secretary Government of Telangana, with regard to Rule 22 of State Sub Ordinate Service Rules which Governs Rule of Reservation with reference to notification No.Rc.No.600/R&T/Genl/1/2006, Dated 29.12.2006 and the Judgment in Writ Petition No.10277 of 2008, Dated 6-9-2008, for correction of Wrong Roster Point starting with 98^th point as starting Roster Point of the 1^st Cycle by continuing state roster from 98^th point for the beginning of selection on zonal merit and by taking the point No.1 as starting roster point and for the 40 vacancies notified roster cycle should stop at 40^th point and at 39^th point petitioner is legally entitled as he is from BC-D Community and only candidate left un- selected after scoring 179.75 marks after attending Viva voce and to set aside the rejection order of the 1^st Respondent with reference letter No.330/Counrts.A1/2016 dated 06.05.2017, as the 4^th respondent is the only authority empowered to consider petitioner’s representation which is in violation of the interim orders of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.M.P.No.51673 of 2016 in W.P.No.41919 of 2016 filed by the petitioner and respondent No.1 is not having any authority to consider petitioner’s representation and to pass non speaking orders as it requires correction to the tampered reservation schedule under rule 22 of State Sub-ordinate service rules because the Government is the rule making authority and it is the authority to evolve policies there under, declare such actions of Respondent as arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice colourable exercise of powers by setting aside the rejection order of the 1^st respondent with reference letter No.330/Courts/A1/2016, dated 06.05.2017 and consequently direct the respondents to select and appoint as Assistant Public Prosecutor in Zone VI at roster point 39 with reference to notification No.Rc No.600/R&T/Genl/1/2006, Dated 29-12-2006 with all consequential reliefs and pass such other order…”.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondents are implementing authority of the Government policies. The impugned notification is the 1^st notification with reference No.Rc.No.600/R&T/Genl/1/2006 dated 29.12.2006 to begin with selections on Zonal Merit as per Presidential Order 1975 implementing Judgment in W.P.No.10277 of 2008 dated 06.09.2008. The respondents in Zone VI started the 1^st cycle with 98^th point instead of “1^st” point for 40 vacancies notified due to the same roster cycle could not reach slot 39 point which is meant for B.C.(D) category to which the petitioner belong to, consequently, the petitioner was denied his legal right of appointment to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor by the respondents.

It is the further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s plea to treat the Assistant Public Prosecutor post as Zonal Post with retrospective effect in tune with Rule 22 of State Subordinate Service Rules was dismissed finally through this Hon’ble Division Bench order in Review in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in Writ Appeal No.1512 of 2018 dated 21.04.2022 and now the respondents are left with only option of giving prospective effect which is mandatory to avoid two modes in the same roster cycle as per the High Court Order in W.P.No.10277 of 2008 and respondents by starting with 98^th point in Zone VI are following two modes in the same roster cycle violating the High Court order in W.P.No.10277 of 2008