THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
W.A.No.100 of 2021
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated
31.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.32084 of 2018.
The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent
No.1, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge, is a person with disability (hearing impaired) and has submitted her application pursuant to a Notification dated 10.10.2017 issued by the Telangana Public Service Commission for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II. In the aforesaid Notification, one post was exclusively reserved under the category of persons with disability (hearing handicapped) in the local cadre of Nalgonda. Respondent No.1 in the present appeal was a meritorious candidate. She, as per her performance, was placed in the merit list within the zone of consideration for being appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II. However, because she has not opted for Nalgonda District and has given preference to other Districts, such as Karimnagar, Khammam and Warangal, she was not considered for being appointed as Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II, though a vacancy was earmarked for physically handicapped person in Nalgonda District.
Learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Public Service Commission, in open court, has stated that there is no other candidate, except respondent No.1/writ petitioner, available under the reserved category.
2
As respondent No.1/writ petitioner was not being appointed and her candidature was rejected on 13.06.2018, solely on the ground that she has not given preference in respect of Nalgonda District, she came up before this court by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-
"...Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of Paragraph No.8 clause 5 of the notification, which makes it clear that the Commission has the power to assign a successful candidate to any of the notified posts for which he/she is qualified and eligible subject to fulfilling the selection criterion. The respondents cannot reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that she has not exercised the option to Nalgonda District. Clause 2 of Paragraph No.8 has to be read along with Clause 5 of Paragraph No.8. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the selection will be made based on the rank in the merit list and in tune with Clause 5. Clause 5 of Paragraph No.8 of the notification makes it clear that the Commission has the power to assign a successful candidate to any of the notified posts for which he/she is qualified and eligible, subject to fulfilling the selection criterion. In the case on hand, the petitioner is a successful candidate and she is coming within the zone of consideration as per the merit list for the un-filled post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II, which is earmarked for Hearing Handicapped quota. Her case cannot be rejected merely because she has not given any preference for local Nalgonda District. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned rejection order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II in the unfilled vacancy under Hearing Handicapped quota in Nalgonda District and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."
In Clause 5 of Para-VIII of the Notification itself, it was clearly mentioned that the preference opted by candidates in respect of posts, District etc., are only indicative for being 3 considered to the extent possible, but not binding or limiting the Commission's powers under Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India. Meaning thereby, the Commission was having power to assign a successful candidate to any District irrespective of the option given by her/him.
In the present case, there is no other candidate available, who has been selected for the post reserved under the category of persons with disability (hearing handicapped) and therefore, the learned Single Judge was certainly justified in directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II under the unfilled vacancy reserved under the category of persons with disability (hearing handicapped). This court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 08.11.2021 JSU