SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 74645

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Badisha Mohan Rao – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 14766/2023



THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.14766 of 2023

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.

2. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the GO Ms.No.37 dated 27.04.2021 issued by 1st respondent in allowing the appeal of 8th respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 6th respondent vide Roc.No.1782/B11/2018 dated 30/06/2021 in appointing the 8th respondent as Veterinary Assistant and also the GO Ms.No.49 dated 25.06.2021 issued by the 1st respondent in allowing the appeal of 9th respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 6th respondent vide Roc.No.1782/B11/2018 dated 27/07/2021 in appointing the 9th respondent as Veterinary Assistant as arbitrary. illegal, bad in law, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also violative of GO Ms.No.24 Tribal Welfare (LTR.I) Department dated 12.06.2018 and consequently set aside the GO Ms.No.37 dated 27.04.2021 issued by 1st respondent in allowing the appeal of 8th respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 6th respondent vide Roc No.1782/1311/2018 dated 30/06/2021 in appointing the 8th respondent as Veterinary Assistant and also the GO Ms.No.49 dated 25.06.2021 issued by the 1st respondent in allowing the appeal of 9th respondent and the consequential proceedings of the 6th respondent vide Roc.No.1782/1311/2018 dated 27/07/2021 in appointing the 9th respondent as Veterinary Assistant…”

3. Brief facts of the case are that a notification vide No. 30/2017 dated 02.06.2017 was issued by Telangana State Public Service Commission for recruitment of Veterinary Assistant in Category (4) of Class-A in Animal Husbandry Department. Petitioners along with respondent Nos.8 & 9 applied for the said posts. As per the recruitment notification, total of 50 posts have been reserved for ST candidates and 27 posts have been reserved for ST (W) candidates. Further, regarding scheduled areas, as per G.O.Ms.No.64, S.W.(V) Department dated 04/04/1988, all the posts arising in scheduled area shall be filled with local ST candidates only. Pursuant to the written examination held, the marks list of provisionally selected candidates was published. The Government of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.24 Tribal Welfare (LTR.1) Department dated 12.06.2018 prescribing procedure for issuance of Agency Area Local Scheduled Tribe Certificates, and as per the said GO, the existing guidelines already issued by the 2nd respondent under Memos dated 07/07/2011 and 25/02/2015 shall continue. When the respondents issued local schedule tribes certificates to the provisionally selected candidates without following the guidelines provided for in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 12.06.2018, writ petitions vide WP Nos. 22685 and 24914/2018 were filed before this Court, and both the writ petitions were disposed of directing the District Collector to re-verify the certificates of all the selected candidates within a period of two weeks and after conducting such verification, the authorities are at liberty to give appointment orders, and the appointments shall be given to those candidates only whose certificates are genuine. Subsequent to the directions issued by this Court, the local candidate certificates of the unofficial respondents were re-verified, and the 5th respondent addressed letters dated 18.11.2019 and 19.11.2019 to 4th respondent stating that respondent Nos.8 and 9 have not established their forefathers existence at the time 1950's and as such the Agency Area Certificate issued to them are found to be non-genuine. Challenging the said rejection proceedings, respondent Nos.8 and 9 preferred an appeal before respondent No.1 and without looking into any of the conditions imposed in G.O.Ms.No.24 dated 12.06.2018, 1st respondent allowed the appeal holding that respondent N

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top