Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 17171
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T. Madhavi Devi, J
K.Sayappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
W.P.NO. 22413 OF 2019
Administrative shortfalls in required service periods, when certified as 'duty period' by the competent authority and not caused by absenteeism, must be counted towards eligibility to prevent discriminatory treatment of candidates.
Headnote:The petitioners, serving as Home Guards since 2009, challenged their non-selection for the post of Police Constables under the Home Guard quota. Although the notification required a minimum of 360 days of service within two years, the petitioners recorded 330 and 324 days respectively. However, their service certificates contained explicit notes stating that the shortfall was due to administrative reasons and should be considered as 'duty period'. The court found that the respondents had ignored these notes for the petitioners while applying them to another similarly situated candidate, respondent No. 4. The central issue was whether the administrative shortfall in service, certified as 'duty period' by the issuing authority, should be counted towards the eligibility criteria. The court reasoned that since the shortfall was not due to absenteeism and the authority had explicitly certified the period as duty on administrative grounds, the petitioners were eligible. The court held that denying the petitioners while appointing another candidate in a similar position was clearly discriminatory. The court invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment under the Home Guard quota by taking their Home Guard service certificates as 360 days during the period of two years and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously preferably within a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eligibility dispute regarding home guard service duration and administrative certification. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on vacancy status and the plea for parity based on erroneous certificate consideration. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. administrative shortfalls treated as duty for eligibility to prevent discrimination. (Para 7) |
| 4. final disposal of the writ petition with directions for appointment. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not selecting the petitioners on par with respondent No.4, as illegal, arbitrary and unjustified and consequently to direct the respondent No.2 to select the petitioners to the post of Police Constables in Mahabubnagar District and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioners were appointed as Home Guards in the year 2009 and were working as such. The respondents have issued a notification for selection to the post of Police Constables in Mahabubnagar District and since the petitioners were eligible, they applied for the said post under Home Guards quota and they have participated in the written examination on 28.05.2019 and both the petitioners have secured 73 and 85 marks respectively. The petitioners have furnished the service certificates from the departments and it was certified that Petitioner No.1 has worked continuously for a period of two years from 01.06.2016 to 31.05.2018 and that during this period his service was used for 330 days and he is also currently on the roll of the Home Guard Organization. A note was also mentioned at the bottom of the certificate that since the date of his appointment as Home Guard in the year 2009 and till he was returned from OD Unit i.e., BSNL, Mahabubnagar on 06.12.2014, he is on the roll of Home Guards of the subject unit and was being allotted to duties on rotation basis in the regular basis. It was observed that no absence was found as on the date of notification and it was only due to administrative reasons, that he was not provided with regular duties and the shortfall of remaining days may be considered as ‘duty period’ on administrative grounds. In respect of the Petitioner No.2 also a similar certificate has been given certifying that he has put in 324 days for a period of two years and a note was mentioned thereunder, similar to the note mentioned in the certificate of the Petitioner No.1. It is submitted that on the ground that both the petitioners have not put the minimum of 360 days within a period of two years as prescribed in the notification, the cases of these two petitioners were not considered for appointment. However, respondent No.4, whose case was also similar, was considered and he was appointed. In view thereof, the petitioners have filed this writ petition alleging discriminatory action and submitted that the petitioner also should be appointed therefor.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents have filed a counter affidavit reiterating the stand that the petitioners do not qualify the required number of days of service as Home Guards.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 is also heard.
5. This Court, after hearing both the parties had required the learned standing counsel to get instructions on the vacancy position. The learned standing counsel has received instructions to the affect that steps are being taken to terminate the services of respondent No.4 and further that the vacancies pertaining to 2018 notification, were taken up in the subsequent notification issued on 25.04.2022 and entire process has been completed in the year 2023. Therefore, according to him, there are no further vacancies to be considered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court at the earliest and their cases were not considered on an erroneou
