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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 15633

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Ryagatla Mallesham – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 956/2019



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI

WRIT PETITION No. 956 of 2019

DATE: 28.04.2026

Between:

Ryagatla Mallesham

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Department of Medical & Health,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and 4 others.

…Respondents

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the action of respondents

No.2 to 4 in selecting candidates for the post of Lab Technicians

without following the roster as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are

that the respondent authorities issued a notification dated 04.04.2017

calling for applications for the post of Lab Technicians in Siddipet

District and the last date for receipt of applications was 17.10.2017. It

is further submitted that the petitioner applied for the said post and, as

##PAGE2##

TMD,J

WP_956_2019

2

per his educational qualifications, he was awarded 54.33% marks. It

is submitted that seven candidates were selected. Though the

respondents had called only 101 candidates for interview and the

petitioner was placed at Sl.No.101, his name did not find place in the

list of selected candidates, but a candidate who was placed at

Sl.No.162, i.e., unofficial respondent No.5, was selected. According

to the petitioner, respondents No.2 to 4 have not followed the roster

properly and have not followed the selection process correctly and

have selected respondent No.5. Therefore, the present Writ Petition

has been filed.

3. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the

respondents, has referred to the averments made in the counter

affidavit and submitted that the petitioner did not secure any marks in

the interview, whereas respondent No.5 secured 20 marks. Therefore,

according to him, respondent No.5 obtained more marks than the

petitioner and hence was selected and appointed and is presently

discharging his duties.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that

marks were awarded to the candidates based on educational

##PAGE3##

TMD,J

WP_956_2019

3

qualifications, experience, and performance in the interview. He

submitted that since respondent No.5 secured more marks than the

petitioner, his selection was justified. It is further submitted that there

has been no challenge to the manner in which the interview was

conducted or the marks were awarded to the candidates. Therefore,

the petitioner cannot now raise grounds about the interview not being

conducted in a proper manner.

5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on

record, this Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the

appointment of respondent No.5 only on the ground that he secured

lesser marks than the petitioner in terms of educational qualifications

and experience. However, it is noticed that respondent No.5 secured

more marks in the interview i.e., 20 marks, whereas the petitioner

secured 0 marks. The petitioner has not challenged the procedure

adopted by the respondents in awarding marks in the interview.

Further, it is also noticed that there are other candidates who have

secured more marks than the petitioner in both educational

qualifications and interview. Without there being any challenge to the

awarding of marks in the interview, the petitioner cannot now take

ground that he is more meritorious than the selected candidates.

##PAGE4##

TMD,J

WP_956_2019

4

6. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in the

Writ Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, this

Court had directed the respondents to get instructions as to whether

there are any existing vacancies for the post of Lab Technicians. Both

the respondents and the learned counsel for the petitioner, based on

information obtained under the Right to Information Act, submitted

that the Commissioner of Health and Family Welfare & Mission

Director, National Health Mission, Telangana, has issued instructions

to stop filling up vacancies under the National Health Mission in the

districts until further

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