Shaik Jahangeer Ali vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                  WRIT PETITION No.7453 of 2020

ORDER:

1 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and give posting orders as Junior Assistant in lieu of PC (AR) as he is having qualifications for appointment as such.

2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he belongs to B.C (B) Dudekula caste and was selected for the post of police constable in the year 2004. Since he has not received any proceedings he approached the authorities who said that his caste certificate, which was issued by the 5th respondent herein dated 25.10.2001, was referred to the revenue authorities to enquire about its genuineness and was informed that on receipt of confirmation from the revenue authorities the proceedings will be issued. He approached the revenue authorities and requested to furnish genuineness certificate as sought by the Superintendent of Police, Khammam, but they said that no such correspondence is received from the office of the Superintendent of Police, Khammam. Thereafter, he made several representations to the revenue authorities, but in vain.

3 It is further submitted that the petitioner met with accident on 11.06.2019. Thereafter, he made a representation to the Tahsildar for issuance of fresh caste certificate. The authorities gave caste certificate certifying that he belongs to B.C (B) Dudekula caste, vide CNDO 22018270800 dated 20.01.2020. 4 It is further submitted that after obtaining fresh caste certificate from the 5th respondent, the petitioner made representation to the 3rd respondent explaining his grievance and requested to give him posting orders as Junior Assistant which is equivalent to the post of PC (AR) as he met with accident. Since no action is forth coming favourably, the present writ petition is filed. 5 Basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit, the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents submitted that the final selection which the petitioner claims pertains to 16 years back and he did not contact the office of the 3rd respondent about his final selection and the record is also not available. Representing after more than one and half decade is not considerable issue. The petitioner never approached the office in between and suddenly filed his fresh caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar dated 20.01.2020. Since the issue is of about 16 years back no action can be taken at this point of time. 3 6 He further submitted that the petitioner claims that he was provisionally selected as SCT PC pertains to the notification issued in 2001 by the Police Recruitment Board and mere provisional selection as SCT PC does not give any right to the petitioner to claim appointment on regular basis that too in a different post after more than 20 years and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 7 In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition the 3rd respondent sought information from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Khammam to ascertain whether the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner is genuine or not pursuant to which, the 5th respondent herein has submitted a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer stating that the caste certificate submitted by the petitioner is genuine.

8 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions:

V.Mohan Babu Vs. Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman, College Road, Chennai1, Tukaram Kana Joshi Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation2, 1 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 489 2 (2013) 1 SCC 353 4 Purushottam Vs. Chairman MSEB and another3, Hotel Seaking and Others Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation4, and Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway5. 9 There is no much dispute about the caste status of the writ petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was provisionally selected for the post of PC (AR) in the selections took place in 2001 by the Police Recruitment Board. The petitioner claims to have made representations to the revenue officials apart from the Superintendent of Police, Khammam repeatedly for verification of his caste certificate and issuance of proceedings regarding appointment. But the petitioner chose to file representations before a different forum. There is a State level Police Recruitment Board instituted to lookafter the entire recruitment process. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have made representations to the appropriate body at appropriate time, instead of representing before the revenue officials and the 3rd respondent, who are not the relevant parties to agitate his cause as the recruitment process of the writ petitioner was not complete in terms of the recruitment notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police Recruitment Board. Moreover, the representations made by the petitioner do not bear any acknowledgement in order to prove his 3 (1999) 6 SCC 49 4 (1999) 6 SCC 51 5 (2019) 12 SCC 798 5 legitimacy. The 3rd respondent has no power to consider the case of the petitioner. Mere filing of representations before an authority which is not concerned with the recruitment process does not yield any result without pursuing them. The petitioner, having slept over the issue for more than one and half decade, cannot come to the Court pleading innocence. It is the duty of the petitioner to prove his case before the appropriate body within a reasonable time. Further, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner can also not be relied upon since even as per his own case he was bed ridden for one week. That too the said certificate was issued by a private hospital. So it cannot be looked into. Hence, mere provisional selection as SCT PC does not give any right to the petitioner to claim appointment on regular basis that too in a different post after more than 20 years. The facts of the judgments, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are different to the facts of the case on hand and hence they have no application to the case of the petitioner.

10 In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

11 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 08-02-2023.

Kvsn