Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16350

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Sarath, J
Shaik Jahangeer Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.No.17877 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. Prateek Reddy
For the Respondents: B. Krishna (Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Home)

State authorities cannot deny appointment to a duly selected candidate based on the ground of delay or stale claims when the delay is attributable to the employer's own inaction, particularly after a judicial finding that the candidate's request merits reconsideration.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 14, 16 - Selection process - Delay and laches - Petitioner selected as Police Constable in 2003, but appointment withheld due to caste dispute - Subsequent accident rendered petitioner physically disabled - Division Bench previously directed reconsideration of claim, rejecting defense of stale claim - Respondents again rejected claim on grounds of delay - Held, respondents' rejection is contrary to Division Bench directions; petitioner cannot be denied appointment due to employer's fault - Matter remanded for appointment as Junior Assistant or suitable alternative post. (Paras 10, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was selected for the post of Police Constable (Armed Reserve) in 2003, but appointment was withheld citing a dispute over caste certification. Despite an enquiry report confirming the petitioner’s caste, no appointment was issued. Subsequently, the petitioner suffered an accident resulting in 45% disability. A prior writ appeal directed the government to reconsider the petitioner's case, yet the government rejected the claim again based on delay.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the government's rejection relied on grounds (delay) already addressed and rejected by the Division Bench. The court affirmed that a candidate has a limited right to fair treatment, and arbitrary denial of appointment after successful selection is illegal.

Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s request for appointment on grounds of delay was sustainable after a previous judicial remand and considering the employer’s own negligence in processing the appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a candidate is duly selected but denied employment due to the employer's administrative failures, they cannot be prejudiced by the passage of time. State actions must be rational and non-arbitrary, especially when the employer has partially acknowledged the claim by initiating verification processes.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; impugned order set aside and matter remanded for appointment.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges the rejection of his appointment in lieu of a police constable due to historical caste disputes and delay. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. respondents defend the denial based on the lapse of time and provisional nature of the initial selection. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
3. employer cannot decline appointment for delay caused by their own inaction; fairness in public employment is mandated. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)

ORDER:

Heard Sri M. Prateek Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Krishna, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Home for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings vide C.No.1197/A1/KMM/2020-25 dated 08.02.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 in rejecting the petitioner’s representations dated 20.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 and not giving appointment order as Junior Assistant in lieu of Police Constable (Armed Reserve) as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test as well as Medical Examination conducted by the respondent No.6-Board in the year, 2003 and selected for appointment as Police Constable (AR-MEN) under B.C.(B) Dudedukala Caste quota. In the final recruitment results published in a daily Newspaper, petitioner’s name was included among the list of selected candidates, but he has not received any appointment order from the respondent authorities. When the petitioner has approached, the respondent authorities have informed that his appointment was kept in abeyance on the ground that his caste certificate bearing Ref.No.D/6368/2001 dated 25.10.2001 issued by the respondent No.5 has been referred to the revenue authorities for verification on the ground that the caste of his father, who worked as ARSI and retired, was recorded as Muslim (OC) community in his service records, but on enquiry, no such correspondence has been received by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Khammam Urban.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that while it being so, the petitioner met with an accident resulting physical disability of left lower limb and impaired reach and the Government has issued Disability Certificate dated 18.08.2021 certifying 45% disability. The petitioner has also obtained fresh Caste Certificate bearing No.B/C/2020 dated 20.01.2020 from the Tahsildar, Khammam Urban confirming that he belongs to BC-B (Dudekula) category. The petitioner made representations dated 20.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 to the respondents seeking appropriate orders regarding his selection for appointment as Junior Assistant in lieu of Police Constable (Armed Reserve). Even after the enquiry report submitted by the Tahsildar vide Rc.No.D/1448/2020 dated 28.07.2020 to the Revenue Divisional Officer that the petitioner belongs to BC-B Dudekula Community, no orders have been passed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner filed W.P.No.7453 of 2020 to consider his case for posting orders as Junior Assistant in lieu of Police Constable (AR) and the same was dismissed on 08.02.2023 on the ground of delay and laches as the claim of petitioner pertaining to the selection process of the year, 2001-2002. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1205 of 2023 and the same was allowed on 05.03.2024 by setting aside the order passed in W.P.No.7453 of 2020 dated 08.02.2023 and directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the Judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1205 of 2023 dated 05.03.2024, the respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order in C.No.1197/A1/KMM/2020-25 dated 08.02.2025 stating that after detailed examination of the facts, the petitioner’s request was found untenable as he was working as HG No.202 at Khammam and he cannot claim regular appointment merely o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 16350

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. Sarath, JShaik Jahangeer Ali – AppellantVersusState Of Telangana – RespondentW.P.No.17877 of 2025

State authorities cannot deny appointment to a duly selected candidate based on the ground of delay or stale claims when the delay is attributable to the employer's own inaction, particularly after a judicial finding that the candidate's request merits reconsideration.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Sarath, J
Shaik Jahangeer Ali – Appellant
Versus
State Of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.No.17877 of 2025