Telangana High Court
B Ganesh vs The State Of Telangana on 28 August, 2024
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU
RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.19341, 29104, 29529, 31666, 31728, 32014,
32017 OF 2023; 5509, 10031, 13928, 16229, 16846, 16946, 17027,
17910, 18647, 20986 AND 22557 OF 2024
% 28-08-2024
#Sri Chimata Karunakar and others. ...Petitioners
vs.
$The State of Telangana and others. ... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners:
1. Sri G. Vidyasagar, Senior Counsel
representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram,
counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and
32017 of 2023.
2. Ms. Kalpana Perumandla, counsel for
petitioners in W.P.Nos.31728 and 31666 of
2023 and 16846, 16946, 18647, 20986 and
22557 of 2024.
^Counsel for Respondents:
1. Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, Advocate
General and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special
Government Pleader assisting Advocate
General for the State.
2. Sri Goda Siva, Senior Counsel
representing Ms. G. Ramalakshmi, counsel
for respondent Nos.9 to 59 in W.P.No.32017
of 2023.
3. Sri M.V. Rama Rao, Standing Counsel for
TSLPRB.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2020) 20 SCC 209
2. (2022) 8 SCC 713
3. (2017) 4 SCC 357
4. W.P.No.40714 of 2022 and batch, dated 13.12.2023.
5. (1990) 3 SCC 157
6. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 367
7. (1992) 4 SCC 711
8. (2022) 11 SCC 392
9.1953 AIR 274
10. 1987 AIR 1023
11. (1977) 2 SCC 256
2
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION Nos.19341, 29104, 29529, 31666, 31728, 32014,
32017 OF 2023; 5509, 10031, 13928, 16229, 16846, 16946, 17027,
17910, 18647, 20986 AND 22557 OF 2024
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)
Between:
Sri Chimata Karunakar and others.
...Petitioners
vs.
The State of Telangana and others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:28.08.2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? :
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.19341, 29104, 29529, 31666, 31728,
32014, 32017 OF 2023; 5509, 10031, 13928, 16229, 16846,
16946, 17027, 17910, 18647, 20986 AND 22557 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy Paul) In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners have questioned the legality, validity, propriety and constitutionality of G.O.Ms.No.46, General Administration (SPF.II) Department, dated 04.04.2022, and Note-1 below para 2B and Table 6 of Notification dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.3 in relation to recruitment of Police Constable (TSSP) (Post Code No.24).
Facts:
2. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, respondent No.3 herein, issued the recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) inviting candidature for different posts including the post of Constable. The petitioners and other candidates submitted their candidature for the post of Constable.
The total number of vacancies for Cadre Post Code No.24 (Constable) are 5010 and the relevant portion of notification reads thus:
4
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch 2B. DISTRIBUTION OF VACANCIES FOR CONTIGUOUS DISTRICT CADRE POST CODE No.24 Post Code Sl.No. Name of the Unit No.24 Total LR DR 1 Contiguous District Cadre - I 47 2442 2489 2 Contiguous District Cadre - II 35 2486 2521 Total 82 4928 5010 Note: 1. 95% of the vacancies in the above Contiguous District cadre shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among the local Candidates in relation to each of the local areas in respect of such cadres as per the ratio communicated by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.46, General Administration (SPF.II) Department, dated 04.04.2022.
2. After selection, the Appointing Authority may appoint them in any Buttalion in the concerned Contiguous District cadre.
3. Since a reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, the petitioners have assailed the said G.O., also in these Writ Petitions in addition to challenge to Note-1 and Table 6.
4. The case of the petitioners is that the post of Constable is divided into two cadres namely (i) Contiguous District Cadre-I and (ii) Contiguous District Cadre-II. The note No.1 appended below para 2B aforesaid specifies that 95% of vacancies in the above Contiguous District Cadres are reserved as per the ratio communicated by G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022. Note-2 provides that after selection, the Appointing Authority may 5 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch appoint them in any Battalion in the concerned Contiguous District Cadre. Rule 11 of the rules governing the post specifies that Post Code No.24 and Post Code Nos.21, 22 and 23 are made under the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee) Rules, 1999 (Rules of 1999) as published in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022.
5. Clause 19E of notification (Annexure P-2) provides that the final selection shall be made strictly in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 04.08.2021, whereas Clause 20 talks about reservation of 'local candidates' in each Contiguous District Cadre for Post Code No.24. The candidates were required to go through physical efficiency test and physical measurement test. The candidates who passed those tests were subjected to final written examination held on 30.04.2023.
6. W.P.No.19341 of 2023 was filed on 21.07.2023 challenging G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, and this Court by order dated 21.07.2023, recorded the statement of learned Special Government Pleader that till the counter affidavits are filed in the Writ Petition, the final result would not be announced. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that without obtaining any permission in the above subjudice matter, respondent No.3 displayed cut-off marks of the candidates i.e., Police Constable 6 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch unit-wise in each Contiguous Districts on 04.10.2023. The Division Bench of this Court, on 19.10.2023, deprecated the conduct of the respondents in declaring the result during the pendency of the Writ Petition and directed them not to fill up 20 posts of Police Constables.
7. The facts are taken from W.P.No.32014 of 2023 which was filed on 18.11.2023. The selected candidates were directed to undergo training and in that order, it was specifically mentioned that their training/selection shall remain subject to outcome of the Writ Petitions/SLPs pending in the Courts. Contentions of the petitioners:
8. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and 32017 of 2023 placed reliance on various statutory provisions and G.O.Ms., to buttress their submissions. G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 31.12.2015, was referred to show that the selection procedure comprises of preliminary written test, physical efficiency test, physical measurement test and final written test. G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022, was relied upon to submit that the final selection must be strictly on relative merit of the candidates based on their aggregate score of final written examination, physical efficiency test, physical measurement test and weightage marks in Contiguous District 7 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Cadre, as organized under Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018 (Order of 2018). This Order of 2018 (G.O.Ms.No.124) was readout with G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 04.08.2021.
9. G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 30.08.2018, was issued in supersession of the previous Presidential Order, 1975. G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 30.06.2021, was issued by the State publishing the Presidential Order, 2018, as amended vide G.S.R.279(E), dated 16.04.2021. Heavy reliance is placed on the Order of 2018, dated 04.08.2021, organizing the local cadres in Telangana State Special Battalions into Contiguous District Cadre-I comprising of 17 Police Units (11 Revenue Districts and 6 Police Commissionerates) and Contiguous District Cadre-II comprising of 12 Police Units (9 Revenue Districts and 3 Police Commissionerates). The relevant portion reads as under:
A-Posts Organized into (Contiguous) District Cadre Sl.No. Post Category Contiguous District Contiguous District Cadre - I Cadre - II
1) Bhupalapalli - 1) Suryapet Jayashankar
2) Asifabad - 2) Nalgonda Komarambheem
3) Ramagundam 3) Rachakonda Police Commissionarate Commissionarate.
4) Mulugu 4) Hyderabad Police
Commissionarate
5) Adilabad 5) Cyberabad Police
Police Constable Commissionarate
8
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
1. (TSSP) 6) Nirmal 6) Sangareddy
7) Nizamabad Police 7) Vikarabad
Commissionarate
8) Jagtial 8) Mahaboobnagar
9) Karimnagar Police 9) Narayanpet
Commissionarate
10) Siddipet Police 10) Wanaparthy
Commissionarate
11) Sircilla - Rajanna 11) Gadwal - Jogulamba and
12) Kamareddy 12) Nagarkurnool
13) Medak
14) Kothagudem -
Bhadradri
15) Khammam Police Commissionarate
16) Mahabubad and
17) Warangal Police Commissionarate
10. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.46 was issued by the State on 04.04.2022 in relation to each local area basing on the population of such local areas. Sl.No.4 of Annexure-I of G.O.Ms.No.46 describes Home Department and TSSP Battalion. Table 6 in Annexure-II specifies local areas within Contiguous District contrary to the Presidential Order, 2018.
11. The bone of contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the respondents are treating each Police Unit as a separate unit, whereas each Contiguous District Cadre must be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of 'local area'. To bolster this submission, reliance is placed on the definitions of 'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local candidate' mentioned in the Order of 2018. Sub-para (6) of Para (3) of Order of 2018 was relied upon to submit that the State Government is empowered to 9 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch organize the posts belonging to any of the categories in any of the Department in two or more Contiguous Districts (either full or part) or Zones, as the case may be, into a single cadre. Para (5) which describes 'local cadre' and recruitment or appointment of persons, Para (6) which defines 'local areas' and Para (7) which talks about 'local candidate' are highlighted to buttress the submission that once a Contiguous District Cadre is formed, it shall be treated to be a separate unit for the purpose of recruitment.
12. Para 8 of Order of 2018 shows that 95% of the posts to be filled up by direct recruitment must be reserved in favour of 'local candidates' in relation to the 'local area' in respect of such cadre. Sub-para (4) of Para 8 is referred to point out that 95% of posts to be filled up by direct recruitment at any time in such cadre must be reserved in favour of and allocated amongst the 'local candidates' in relation to each of 'local areas' in respect of such cadre in the ratio as prescribed by the State Government basing on the population of such local areas. G.O.Ms.172, dated 04.08.2021, provides that the extent of preference in favour of local candidates in the matter of direct recruitment shall be as laid down in the Order of 2018. It was further contended that cadre strength of respective local cadres as per sanction of posts 10 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch accorded by Finance Department shall be taken and wherever necessary service rules may be amended.
13. The recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022 is relied upon to show that the table mentioned in Para 2B shows that the Contiguous District Cadres-I and II were treated as two separate and independent cadres and they have no relation with any Police Unit, whereas in relation to other posts, such as Cadre Post Code Nos.21 and 22, the name of unit is relatable with the Police Unit. Much emphasis is laid on the tables mentioned in Paras 2A, 2B and 2D of the recruitment notification. The said notification gives an impression to the candidates that so far Cadre Post Code Nos.21, 22 and 26 are concerned, the relevant unit is either 'Police Unit' or it is the unit based on the District or Police Commissionerate, whereas post of Constable (Code No.24) makes it clear that the Contiguous District Cadres-I and II were treated as two different units.
14. Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.No.46 is a table which contains a column namely 'local area ratio'. Against the post of Police Constable, it is mentioned that local area ratio would be as prescribed in Table 6 in Annexure-III. Table 6 reads thus: 11
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Contiguous District Cadre I S.No. Local Area Ratio 1. Bhupalpally Jayashanker 3 2. Asifabad Kumarambheem 3
3. Ramagundam Police 10 Commissionerate 4. Mulugu 2 5. Adilabad 4 6. Nirmal 4
7. Nizamabad Police 9 Commissionerate 8. Jagitial 6
9. Karimnagar Police 6 Commissionerate
10. Siddipet Police Commissionerate 6 11. Sircilla Rajanna 3 12. Kamareddy 6 13. Medak 5 14. Kothagudem Bhadradri 6
15. Khammam Police 8 Commissionerate 16. Mahabubabad 5
17. Warangal Police Commissionerate 14 Total 100 Contiguous Police District Cadre II S.No. Local Area Ratio 1. Suryapet 6 2. Nalgonda 9
3. Rachakonda Police 16 Commissionerate
4. Hyderabad Police 21 Commissionerate
5. Cyberabad Police 16 Commissionerate 6. Sangareddy 8 7. Vikarabad 5 8. Mahabubnagar 5 9. Narayanpet 3 10. Wanaparthy 3 11. Gadwal Jogulamba 3 12. Nagarkurnool 5 Total 100
15. Learned Senior Counsel referred G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022, to highlight the method of selection. It is submitted 12 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch that the relative merit of the candidates was the sole criteria for selection and posts are required to be filled up from the local candidates of the Contiguous District Cadre. Thus, sheet anchor of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that each of the Contiguous District Cadre is an independent unit for which persons are to be selected and selection cannot be on the basis of Police Unit or unit based on Commissionerate.
16. The chart appended to G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 15.05.2023, was referred to show that the Contiguous District Cadre-I was divided into 17 units and for each unit and for each category, different cut-off marks were given. Thus, a single unified Contiguous District Cadre-I is sub-divided for the purpose of selection and recruitment which runs contrary to the Order of 2018.
17. Anticipating the legal objection of the other side that after having participated in the selection without any demur the petitioners cannot challenge the recruitment notification and G.O.Ms.No.46 dated 04.04.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners raised two fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted that G.O.Ms.No.46 dated 04.04.2022 is not published in the official gazette and it does not have any statutory force. This is at best an executive instruction which runs contrary to the Order 13 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch of 2018. Thus, no estoppel can operate against statute. Secondly, G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, and Note-1 appended to Para 2B of notification dated 25.04.2022 are vague and create confusion. Thus, in view of judgments of Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar 1 and Krishna Rai v. Banaras Hindu University 2, neither delay nor estoppel can be a hurdle for these petitioners. Moreso, when admittedly W.P.No.19341 of 2023 was filed before the selection process was over and results were declared.
18. The justification given in counter of respondent No.3 became subject matter of criticism by the petitioners by submitting that it is pleaded in para 6 that recruitment in question was conducted following the provisions of the Presidential Order, 2018 and hence, Service Rules are not relevant. Reliance is placed on para 15 of the counter of respondent No.3 to submit that it is candidly admitted that Police Constable (TSSP) was earlier a State Cadre Post, but now it is reorganized into two such Contiguous District Cadres.
19. The eyebrows are also raised in the manner the Contiguous District Cadres were divided based on Police Unit and on 1 (2020) 20 SCC 209 2 (2022) 8 SCC 713 14 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch percentage of population. The relevant charts which are mentioned in the counter of respondent No.3 read as under:
Contiguous District Cadre I Contiguous District Cadre II S.No. Police Unit % of Total S.No. Police Unit % of Total Population Population
1. Adilabad 2.0 1. CP Cyberabad 8.1
2. Asifabad 1.5 2. Gadwal 1.7
3. Bhupalpally 1.2 3. CP Hyderabad 11.3
4. Jagtial 2.8 4. Mahabubnagar 2.6
5. CP 2.8 5. Nagarkurnool 2.6 Kamareddy 6. Nalgonda 4.6
6. CP 2.9 7. Narayanpet 1.6 Karimnagar 8. CP Rachakonda 8.1
7. CP Khammam 4.0
9. Sangareddy 4.4
8. Kothagudem 3.1 10. Suryapet 3.1
9. Mahabubabad 2.2 11. Vikarabad 2.6
10. Medak 2.2 12. Wanaparthy 1.7
11. Mulugu 0.7 Total of CDC II 52.4
12. Nirmal 2.0
13. CP 4.5 Nizamabad
14. CP 4.6 Ramagundam
15. Siddipet 2.9
16. Sircilla 1.6
17. CP Warangal 6.8 Total of CDC I 47.8
20. Para 17 of the counter of respondent No.3 contains an averment that if recruitment in question is conducted within each Contiguous District Cadre, without a judicious allotment of the posts within the constituent Districts/Police Units, then it is most likely that Candidates belonging to particular Districts/Police Units that are more literate, developed or urbanized will get selected to majority of the Posts notified within the Contiguous District Cadre by depriving the Candidates from 15 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch less literate, developed or urbanized Districts/Police Units. The impugned selection was conducted to ensure that a fair and equitable opportunity is provided to local candidates.
21. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the averments of para 17 clearly show that the selection is not conducted by treating each 'Contiguous District Cadre' as a separate unit. Instead, they introduced sub-classification based on 'Police Unit' and based on other extraneous considerations which are impermissible as per governing statutory provisions i.e., Order of 2018.
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022 and read it conjointly with G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 31.12.2015, to demonstrate the methodology shown by respondents to fill up post No.21. For post No.24, a different methodology was prescribed in the notification. The respondents committed an error in treating the District Commissionerate as unit and not each cadre as a separate unit. The petitioners are admittedly 'local candidates' in respect of Cadre-I in W.P.No.32014 of 2023 and 'local candidates' in W.P.No.32017 of 2023 for Cadre-II. The next submission is based on online form filed with I.A.No.2 of 2024, which shows 16 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch that the consideration of petitioners ought to have been on the basis of cadre and not on the basis of district as unit.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.29104 of 2023 also placed reliance on para 17 of counter of respondent No.3 to submit that admittedly they have given complete go by to the recruitment Rules and were obsessed to provide so called 'level playing field' to the candidates by treating the district as unit which is impermissible. Stand of the official respondents:
24. Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General, highlighted the history and the background because of which Article 371D became part of the Constitution. The basic idea behind insertion of the said Article was to ensure equitable distribution of posts. The official respondents also placed reliance on relevant Paras of G.O.Ms.No.124 (Order of 2018), dated 30.08.2018 which defines 'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local candidate'. It is submitted that in Cadre-I there were seven battalions whereas, there were only five battalions for Cadre-II. In order to provide equitable opportunity to all the candidates belonging to all the Districts, two cadres were formed and the Districts were distributed amongst these two cadres. 17
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
25. Refuting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Advocate General submits that G.O.Ms.Nos.33, 46 and 172, dated 15.05.2023, 04.04.2022 and 04.08.2021 respectively are issued pursuant to Article 371D of the Constitution. The following lines mentioned on the forehead of impugned G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, were highlighted.
"The Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulations of Direct Recruitment) Orders, 2018 - Contiguous district and zonal cadres organized under Paragraph 3 (6) - Reservation in the matter of direct recruitment - Inter-se ratio among the constituent districts and zones as per Paragraph 8 (4) - Orders - Issued."
Thus, it is urged that the aforesaid G.Os., have constitutional backing what to say of statutory foundation.
26. By placing reliance on Paras 6, 7 and 8 (4) of G.O.Ms.No.124 (Order of 2018), dated 30.08.2018, the learned Advocate General submits that all relevant considerations mentioned in the said order have been taken into account while issuing G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022. Putting it differently, it is submitted that as per sub-para 4 of Para 8 of Order of 2018, dated 30.08.2018, the 'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local candidate' has been given due weightage and no fault can be found in the G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022. 18
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
27. So far attempt of the petitioners to establish that for post No.24, a different procedure and table was prescribed in the notification (Annexure P-2), the learned Advocate General submits that the said contention is misconceived. Merely because a table has not been prepared and reproduced in the notification (Annexure P-2), dated 25.04.2022, District-wise, in relation to Post No.24 in comparison to what has been mentioned under para 2A, it will not cause any dent to the notification as well as to G.O.Ms.No.46. To elaborate, it is submitted that in the recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) in para 2B (Note-1), reference is clearly made to G.O.Ms.No.46, which makes it clear that said G.O., and the table appended with G.O.Ms.No.46 became part of the Notification (Annexure P.2) itself. Table 6 of G.O.Ms.No.46 is heavily relied upon, which is already reproduced hereinabove.
28. Furthermore, it is submitted that only one Writ Petition i.e., W.P.No.19341 of 2023 is filed on 21.07.2023 i.e., before declaration of results on 04.10.2023. G.O.Ms.No.46 was issued on 04.04.2022 and recruitment notification (Annexure P-2) was issued on 25.04.2022. The written examination was held after one year i.e., on 30.04.2023 and results were declared on 04.10.2023. A conjoint reading of G.O.Ms.No.46 and recruitment 19 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch notification dated 25.04.2022, leaves no room for any doubt that the petitioners were fully aware about 'local areas' and 'ratios' as reflected in Table 6 of G.O.Ms.No.46. They did not challenge it with quite promptitude. Instead, they participated in selection without any objection and all the petitioners approached this Court after declaration of results except W.P.No.19341 of 2023 which was filed before declaration of results. The delay and laches are certainly hurdle in their way.
29. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 3 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lakavath Chandrashekar and others v. Union of India and others 4. It is urged that petitions are liable to be rejected on the ground of delay, latches and acquiescence. The judgment in the case of Lakavath Chandrashekar (supra) is relied upon to submit that the petitioners have not impleaded all the selected candidates and in absence thereof, no interference can be made. The herculean exercise undertaken by the State from April, 2022 to recruit 5010 personnel may not be disturbed because of dissatisfaction of certain disgruntled candidates.
3 (2017) 4 SCC 357 4 W.P.No.40714 of 2022 and batch, dated 13.12.2023. 20
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Stand of unofficial respondents:
30. While appearing for respondent Nos.9 to 59 in W.P.No.32017 of 2023, Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel, submits that whole issue boils down to various provisions/paras of Order of 2018. Para 8 deals with reservation of local candidates in local area. Much emphasis is laid on Para 8(4) in general and on the phrase 'each of the local area' in particular. It is submitted that a plain reading of Para 8(4) makes it clear that intention of law maker was relating to 'each of the local area'.
31. Para 3(2) of G.O.Ms.No.124 (Order of 2018) is relied upon to submit that admittedly the post of Constable (Post Code No.24) is equivalent to Junior Assistant. Since G.O.Ms.No.124/Order of 2018 is issued in supersession of previous Presidential Order dated 18.10.1975, the provisions of previous Presidential Orders have lost their significance. Para 8 of G.O.Ms.No.124 is referred to canvass the meaning of 'local areas'. The proviso which used the expression 'each of such district shall be regarded as local area' was again highlighted. It is submitted that Paras 3, 6, 7 and 8 make it clear about local candidates, local area, reservation, etc. Since the Order of 2018, is clearly worded, no other meaning can be assigned to 'local cadre', 'local area' and 21 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch 'local candidate'. Otherwise, it would amount to re-writing the Presidential Order by this Court which is impermissible.
32. The next limb or argument is based on G.O.Ms.No.46. The table appended shows about 'local area' and 'local area ratio'. It is strenuously contended that a conjoint reading of Order of 2018 and G.O.Ms.No.46 would show that the language employed in G.O.Ms.No.46 is pari materia and borrowed from the language used in the Order of 2018. Thus, the argument that G.O.Ms.No.46 is contrary to the Presidential Order sans substance.
33. In addition, learned Senior Counsel for unofficial respondents submits that the petitioners are not able to cross the English Chanel of acquiescence and delay. Although W.P.Nos.19341 of 2023 was filed on 21.07.2023 before declaration of result, the fact remains that this Writ Petition was also filed after more than one year from the date of issuance of G.O.Mos.No.46 and recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2). Only when in W.P.No.19341 of 2023 the interim order previously granted was modified by reserving 20 posts for the petitioners therein, the other petitioners of other Writ Petitions promptly filed petitions thereafter to reap similar benefit. They permitted the grass to grow under their feet and 22 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch suddenly tried to reap same benefits. They appeared in the examination without any objection and demur and therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Rejoinder submission:-
34. In rejoinder submissions, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and 32017 of 2023, reiterated that the recruitment notification (Annexure P-2) provides the 'method of selection'. In that head, the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.46 were not borrowed. It is only borrowed in offending para of notification which does not talk about the said G.O.Ms.No.46.
35. The petitioners are not 'fence-sitters' is the next submission of learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that when results were uploaded in the portal of respondent Department, for the first time, the petitioners came to know about the method of selection and marking and immediately thereafter they filed petitions. Thus, neither acquiescence nor estoppel or delay comes in their way.
36. Article 371D of the Constitution is referred to show the object and purpose for issuance of Order of 2018. Clause (f) of G.O.Ms.No.14 was referred to, at the cost of repetition, to argue 23 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch that the entire Cadre-I and II should form basis for selection and not the Revenue Districts/Police Commissionerates. Every revenue district is not a police district. Certain Commissionerates are consisting of area of more than revenue districts.
37. G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 30.06.2021, is referred to show that cadres have been formed by the State Government. After having formed the cadre, there was no further power to issue G.O.Ms.No.46.
38. Reference is made to N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission 5 to canvass that the vested right created pursuant to advertisement/notification cannot be taken away by the respondents.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in other connected matters borrowed the argument of Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and 32017 of 2023. In W.P.No.32014 of 2023, written synopsis are filed.
5 (1990) 3 SCC 157 24 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
40. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above. We have heard the parties at length and perused the relevant documents.
FINDINGS:
Article 371D of the Constitution:
41. A minute reading of this Article makes it clear that it makes special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the State of Telangana. Clause (1) is an enabling provision which permits the President to pass order with respect to the above States having regard to their requirement and with a view to provide equivalent opportunities and facilities for the people belonging to different parts of such States in the matter of public employment and education. Clause (2) shows that the Presidential Order may be issued for the purpose of requiring the Government to organise any class/classes of posts under the State into different local cadres for different parts of the State and allot in accordance with such principal and procedure as may be specified in the order in relation to local cadres so organised. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 317-D deals with local area and provides the mandate for the State to determine the local area in the light of aforesaid Sub-clause (b). 25
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Sub-clause (c) of Clause (2) is about providing the extent, manner and conditions for giving preference or reservation.
42. The Apex Court in Government of A.P. v.
A.Suryanarayanarao 6 has considered Article 371D in extenso. In the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that the Presidential Order dated 30.08.2018 i.e., Order of 2018 is a Presidential Order passed in exercise of power conferred by Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution. The object behind brining Article 371D into the book of Constitution is explained by Apex Court in A.Suryanarayanarao (supra) in lucid terms and it reads as under:
"3...It is clear from these provisos that the primary purpose of Article 371-D was to promote speedy development of the backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh with a view to secure balance in the development of the State as a whole and to provide equitable opportunities to different areas of the State in the matter of education, employment and career prospects in public service. Accordingly the Presidential Order was made."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. Before dealing with rival interpretations advanced by both sides, at the outset, we may remind ourselves about the basic principles of interpretation of statutes. The statute must be read as a whole in its context. Statute to be construed to make it effective and workable and if meaning is plain and unambiguous, effect must be given to it, irrespective of consequences (see 6 1991 Supp (2) SCC 367 26 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Nelson Motis v. Union of India 7). The guiding rules of interpretation is for avoiding rejection of words. In the instant case, as rightly pointed out by the parties the governing mother statue is the Presidential Order of 2018. It is noteworthy that the expressions 'local area', local candidate' and 'local cadre' are telescoped and used in different Paras of Order of 2018. Thus all relevant paras need to be read conjointly and carefully to determine the correct meaning and assign them correct interpretation.
The Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018 (Order of 2018):
44. In these batch of Writ Petitions, the said Presidential Order is not subject matter of challenge. Interestingly, the petitioners and respondents both have heavily relied upon various Paras of this Presidential Order and tried to interpret the same in their favour.
45. As noticed above, the stand of the petitioners is that once two cadres viz., Contiguous District Cadre-I and II are framed, the local Police Units/Commissionerates fades into insignificance. Each Cadre-I and Cadre-II should be treated as separate unit for Post Code No.24 and all eligible candidates 7 (1992) 4 SCC 711 27 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch should have been considered as against each cadre. In other words, the action of the respondents is criticized in sub-classifying such cadres on the strength of G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022 and it is contended that the same is clear breach of Order of 2018. Taking a diametrically opposite stand, the respondents urged that G.O.Ms.No.46 is nothing but a document issued for implementation of the definitions and directions contained in the Order of 2018. Thus, the interesting quagmire before the Court is to examine whether the impugned orders are issued in consonance with Order of 2018 or not.
46. It is apposite to consider the relevant Paras of Order of 2018 to ascertain the correct answer. The following definitions are relevant and they read as under:
"2. Interpretation.-
(1) In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) and (b)...
(c) "Local Area" in relation to any local cadre, means the local area specified in paragraph 6 for direct recruitment to posts in such local cadre;
(d) "Local Authority" does not include any local authority which is not subject to the control of the State Government;
(e) "Local Cadre" means any local cadre of posts under the State Government organized in pursuance of paragraph 3, or constituted otherwise for any part of the State;
(f) "Local Candidate" in relation to any local area, means a candidate who qualifies under paragraph 7 as a local candidate in relation to such local area;"28
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
47. The relevant portion of Para 3 reads thus:
"3. Organisation of Local cadres.-
(1) The State Government shall, within a period of 36 months from the commencement of this Order, organise classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil posts under the State into various local cadres for different parts of the State to the extent and in the manner, hereinafter provided:
Provided that, notwithstanding the expiration of the said period, the President may by order, require the State Government, whenever he considers it expedient to do so, to organise any classes of posts in the civil services of and classes of civil posts under the State into different local cadres or different parts of the State. (2) The posts belonging to the category of Junior Assistant and each of the other categories equivalent to or lower than that of a Junior Assistant in each department in each district shall be organised into separate cadre.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, subparagraph (1) of paragraph 6 and sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower than that of a Junior Assistant if the minimum of the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay is equal to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant.
(3) The posts belonging to each non-gazetted category of Teachers in Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad and Government Schools in each District shall be organized into a separate integrated cadre and the posts belonging to all other non-gazetted category of Teachers and equivalent or similar category of posts in each department under the State Government in each district shall be organized into separate cadre.
(4) The posts belonging to each category above the category of Junior Assistant and up to and inclusive of the category of Superintendent and each of the other equivalent categories in each department in each Zone shall be organized into a separate cadre.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, subparagraph (2) of paragraph 6 and sub-paragraph (2) of 29 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower than that of a Superintendent if the minimum of the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay is equal to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a Superintendent.
(5) The posts belonging to each category above the category of Superintendent and up to and inclusive of the category of Deputy Collector and each of the other equivalent categories in each department in each Multi-Zone shall be organized into a separate cadre.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph, subparagraph (3) of paragraph 6 and sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to or lower than that of a Deputy Collector if the minimum of the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay is equal to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a Deputy Collector.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the State Government may, where it considers it expedient to do so, organize the posts belonging to any of the categories referred to therein, in any department, or any establishment thereof, in two or more contiguous districts (either full or part) or zones, as the case may be, into a single cadre."
(Emphasis Supplied)
48. In order to determine a 'local area', it is necessary to examine relevant part of Para 6 of Order of 2018 which reads as under:
"6. Local Areas. -
(1) Each district shall be regarded as a local area,-
(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre under the State Government comprising all or any of the posts in any department in the district belonging to the category of a Junior Assistant or to any other category equivalent to or lower than that of a Junior Assistant.
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local authority within that district carrying a scale of pay, 30 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch the minimum of which does not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant or a fixed pay not exceeding that amount.
(iii) for direct recruitment to the posts belonging to each non-gazetted category of Teachers in Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad and Government schools in each district and the posts belonging to all other non-
gazetted category of teachers and equivalent or similar category of posts in each department under the State Government in each district:
Provided that where a single cadre has been organized for two or more districts under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 of posts belonging to any of the categories referred to in clauses (i), (ii) or (iii), each of such districts shall be regarded as separate local area in respect of such cadre.
(2) Each Zone shall be regarded as a local area,-
(i) for direct recruitment to the posts in any local cadre under the State Government comprising all or any of the posts in any department in that Zone belonging to each category above the category of Junior Assistant and up to and inclusive of the category of Superintendent and each of the other equivalent categories in each department;
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any local authority within that zone, carrying a scale of pay, the minimum of which exceeds the minimum of the scale of pay of Junior Assistant but does not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay of Superintendent in Government department:
Provided that where a single cadre has been organized for two or more zones under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3 of posts belonging to any of the categories referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii,) each of such zones shall be regarded as separate local area in respect of such cadre."
(Emphasis Supplied)
49. A conjoint reading of definition of 'local area' with Para 6 of Order of 2018 shows that it is made crystal clear that each district shall be regarded as a 'local area'. The proviso to Para 6 31 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch (1)(iii) makes it further clear that 'each of such district shall be regarded as separate local area in respect of such cadre'. Thus, there is no manner of doubt that Order of 2018 provides that each district shall be regarded as 'local area'.
50. The definition of 'local cadre' needs to be read with Para 3 of Order of 2018. A combined reading of definition and Para 3 clarifies that sub-para 2 deals with District Cadre, sub-para 4 deals with Zonal Cadre and sub-para 5 deals with Multi-zonal Cadre. In the instant case, sub-para 2 of Para 3 would be applicable because admittedly the post of Constable is equivalent to the category of Junior Assistant. Sub-para 2 of Para 3 in no uncertain terms provides that in that category, each district shall be organised into a separate cadre.
51. Sub-para 6 of Para 3 begins with a non-obstante clause and envisages that the State Government can organise the cadres into two or more or may reduce it into a single cadre.
52. It is apt to examine Para 7 of Order of 2018, relevant part of which reads thus:
"7. Local Candidate.- (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to any post shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to a local area,-
(a) in cases where a minimum educational qualification has been prescribed for recruitment to the posts,-32
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
(i) if he has studied in an educational institution or educational institutions in such local area for a period of not less than four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination; or
(ii) where during the whole or any part of the four consecutive academic years ending with the academic year in which he appeared or as the case may be first appeared for the relevant qualifying examination he has not studied in any educational institution, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date of commencement of the qualifying examination in which he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared.
(b) In cases where no minimum educational qualifications has been prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided in that local area for a period of not less than four years immediately preceding the date on which the post is notified for recruitment.
Explanations:- For the purpose of this paragraph,-
(i) 'educational institution' means a University or any educational institution recognized by the State Government, a University or other competent authority;
(ii) relevant qualifying examination in relation to a post means,-
(a) the examination, a pass in which is the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post;
(b) the Seventh Class examination or an examination declared by the State Government to be equivalent to the Seventh Class examination;
whichever is lower;
(Emphasis Supplied)
53. The definition of 'local candidate' is to be read with Para 7 of Order of 2018. If both are read together, it will be clear like noon day that a person is a 'local candidate' in relation to a 'local area'. Thus, we have to revert back to 'local areas' mentioned in 33 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Para 6. Para 7 which defines 'local candidate' provides that a candidate shall be regarded as a 'local candidate' in relation to a 'local area'. In order to determine the 'local area', we need to fall back on Para 6 which defines 'local area' and provides that each district shall be regarded as a local area.
54. In these Writ Petitions, there exists no dispute between the parties that the petitioners are claiming benefit of 'reservation' in the matter of direct recruitment to the extent of 95% as 'local candidates' in relation to 'local area'.
55. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Para 8 of Order of 2018 and the relevant portion of it reads thus:
"8. Reservation in the matter of Direct Recruitment.-
(1) 95 % of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time,-
(a) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising posts belonging to the category of Junior Assistant or a Category equivalent to or lower than that of Junior Assistant;
(b) in any cadre under a local authority comprising posts carrying a scale of pay the minimum of which, or a fixed pay which does not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant ;
(c) in any local cadre comprising the posts belonging to each non-gazetted category of Teachers in Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad and Government schools in each district and the posts belonging to all other non-gazetted category of teachers and equivalent / similar category of posts in each department under the State Government in each district, 34 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area such cadre.
(2) 95% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time,-
(a) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising all or any of the posts in any department in that Zone belonging to each category above the category of Junior Assistant and up to and inclusive of the category of Superintendent and each of the other equivalent categories in each department; and
(b) in any cadre under any local authority within that zone, carrying a scale of pay, the minimum of which exceeds the minimum of the scale of pay of Junior Assistant but does not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay of Superintendent in Government department.
shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area in respect of such cadre.
(3) 95 % of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time ,-
a) in any local cadre under the State Government comprising all or any of the posts in any department in that Multi-Zone belonging to each category above the category of Superintendent and up to and inclusive of the category of Deputy Collector and each of the other equivalent categories in each department; and
b) in any cadre under any local authority within that Multi-Zone, carrying a scale of pay, the minimum of which exceeds the minimum of the scale of pay of Superintendent in Government department but does not exceed the minimum of the scale of pay of Deputy Collector in Government department, shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to the local area of such cadre.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), where in respect of any of the categories referred 35 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch to in the said paragraphs a single cadre has been organised for two or more districts or zones under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3, 95% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time in such cadre shall be reserved in favour of and allocated amongst the local candidates in relation to each of the local areas in respect of such cadre in the ratio as prescribed by the State Government basing on the population of such local areas."
(Emphasis Supplied)
56. A microscopic reading of Para 8(1)(a) makes it obligatory for the Government to reserve 95% posts in a local cadre in favour of local candidates in relation to the 'local areas' of such cadre. Same statutory mandate is ingrained in sub-para 2 (a) and (b). The language employed in aforesaid provisions shows that in order to make the provision mandatory, the word 'shall' is used for the purpose of providing 95% reservation in favour of 'local candidates' in relation to 'local area'.
57. Pertinently, a cursory reading of definitions and Paras 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shows that the terms 'local cadre', 'local candidate' and 'local area' are used in all these paragraphs. In order to gather the correct meaning of 'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local candidate', we must read the relevant definition with relevant paragraphs about which reference is made in the concerned definition clause itself. In our opinion, any other method of interpretation will not be in consonance with the intent of Order of 2018.
36
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
58. If Para 8 is read in this perspective and background, it leaves no room for any doubt that 'local candidate' is in relation to a 'local area' which essentially means each district {see Para 6(1)}. A minute reading of Sub-para (4) of Para 8 on which heavy reliance is placed by both sides, it will be clear that it begins with an overriding provision which overrides sub-paragraphs (1) and (2). Sub-paragraph (1) deals with posts which are upto the post of Junior Assistant (which is admittedly equivalent to Constable), whereas Sub-para (2) talks about posts above Junior Assistant and upto Superintendent. In the instant Writ Petitions, we are not concerned with Sub-para (2) because admittedly the post of Constable is equivalent to Junior Assistant.
59. Sub-para (4) aforesaid permits the Government to organise a single cadre for two or more districts/zones. Thus, it is an enabling provision and it is nobody's case that creation of two cadres as Cadre-I and II for Constable is bad in law.
60. A minute reading of Para 8(4) will show that 'such' singular or bifurcated cadre must be reserved to the extent of 95% for 'local candidates' in relation to each of 'local area'. Reverting back to Para 6, it is noteworthy that each district must be treated as local area. Thus, as per Sub-para (4), 95% reservation must be provided for 'local candidates' in relation to each of the 'local 37 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch areas' (each district is regarded as 'local area' as per Para 6). In addition to aforesaid, Para 8(4) further provides that 95% of posts of such cadre shall be reserved in favour of 'local candidates' in relation to each of 'local areas' (each district) in the ratio as prescribed by State Government basing on population of such local areas. The statute again refers to 'local areas' which as per Para 6 envisages that each district must be regarded as local area. Thus, Para 8(4) in no uncertain terms, gives power to the Government to decide the ratio based on population of such local area/each district. If G.O.Ms.No.46 is examined in the light of this interpretation, conclusion will be inevitable that it was issued to translate the mandate of Order of 2018 into reality. The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.46 reads as under:
"ORDER:
Government have approved schemes for organization of local cadres in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 3 of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018 in all Departments, vide order 3rd read above. In respect of 123 categories of posts in 9 Departments as shown in the Annexure-I appended to this order, which are required to be organized as district cadres and zonal cadre and contiguous zonal cadre posts, respectively, in terms of the provisions made in Paragraph 3 (6) of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018.
2. Sub-paragraph (4) of Paragraph 8 of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018, provides the notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), where in respect of any of the categories referred to 38 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch in the said paragraphs a single cadres has been organized for two or more districts or zones under sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 3, 95% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time in such cadre shall be reserved in favour of and allocated amongst the local candidates in relation to each of the local areas in respect of such cadre in ratio as prescribed by the State Government basing on the population of such local areas.
3. Accordingly, Government direct that 95% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any time in the above contiguous cadres, shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among the local candidates in relation to each of the local areas in respect of such cadres, in ratios as prescribed in Annexures I to III appended to this order.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat/all the Heads of Departments/All the District Collectors in the State shall take necessary action accordingly.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF TELANGANA) CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"
(Emphasis Supplied)
61. Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.46 prescribes 'local area ratio'. The relevant heading refers to prescription as per Table 6 in Annexure-II. For 'local area ratio' also, Table 1 of Annexure-III is referred. Table 6 is already reproduced by us in preceding paragraphs. This contains the heading of 'local areas' and 'ratio' in relation to both the cadres. In our opinion, Order of 2018 permits the Government to undertake aforesaid exercise. In other words, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the local area yardstick considered by the respondents is in utter violation 39 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch of Order of 2018. Similarly, we are of the opinion that Order of 2018 permits the respondents to fill up 95% posts from local areas in the manner they are filling up in the instant case. Para 8(4) of Order of 2018 makes it obligatory for the official respondents to provide reservation to 'local candidates' in relation to each of local area (as per Para 6, each district) in the ratio as prescribed by Government basing on the population of such local areas (each district as per Para 6). We find substance in the argument of respondents that G.O.Ms.No.46 is issued in consonance of and in furtherance of Order of 2018. Hence, the argument that since it was not published in the gazette it is liable to be interfered with, is devoid of any merit.
62. We also find substantial force in the argument of learned Advocate General and Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel appearing for unofficial respondents that merely because beneath para 2B (related Post Code No.24) similar table is not prepared which is being prepared for Post Code Nos.21 and 22 will not make any difference for the simple reason that note-I below para 2B of the notification borrows G.O.Ms.No.46. It says that 95% of the vacancies in the above Contiguous District cadres shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among the local Candidates in relation to 'each of the local areas' in respect of such cadres as 40 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch per the ratio communicated by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.46, General Administration (SPF.II) Department, dated 04.04.2022.
63. After reading this note, there was no scope of any confusion for the candidates that G.O.Ms.No.46 will be the governing criteria for the purpose of recruitment. The recruitment notification is issued in furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.46 and G.O.Ms.No.46 was issued to translate Order of 2018 into reality. Thus no fault can be found in the impugned provisions.
64. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, during the course of arguments placed substantial reliance on Clause 19E(i) 'final selection' for Post Code No.21 and Clause 19E(iv) for Post Code No.24 of notification (Annexure P-2) to differentiate that methods and criteria are different. We do not see any merit in this contention. Clause 19E(iv) which deals with Post Code No.24 clearly refers to Order of 2018. While interpreting the various paragraphs of Order of 2018, we have already given our stamp of approval to the methodology and procedure adopted by the respondents, and hence, we are unable to give any other interpretation to Clause 19E(iv). Even otherwise, it is trite that if there exists a difference between statutory provision and advertisement, it is the statutory 41 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch provision which will prevail and must be followed (see Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India 8. For similar reason, we are unable to accept the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners about his contention based on Clause 2(f) 'selection' mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022. This provision is also based on Order of 2018. As per this Clause 2(f), the posts are required to be filled up from the 'local candidates'.
65. At the cost of repetition, to determine meaning of 'local candidates', one has to read Para 2(f) with Paras 6 and 7 of Order of 2018. Upon cumulative reading of these provisions, we have already held that the action of the respondent Department cannot be said to be in the breach of Order of 2018. In our judgment, since the petitioners could not make out their case on merits, it is not necessary for us to deal with the issues relating to estoppel, acquiescence, delay, etc. However, we are not inclined to throw these Writ Petitions overboard on the ground that selected candidates have not been impleaded for the simple reason that unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 59 in W.No.32017 of 2013 are selected candidates. They got themselves impleaded. 8 (2022) 11 SCC 392 42 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
66. The matter may be viewed from another angle. As held in A.Suryanarayanarao (supra), the purpose of Article 371D is to promote speedy development of the backward areas of State in the matter of education and employment providing equitable opportunities to different area is one of the main underlying objects.
67. While inserting Para 8(4) in Order of 2018, the said object became operating reason and accordingly in the Presidential Order of 2018, 95% posts of organized cadres are reserved in favour of 'local candidates' in relation to each of the 'local areas' as per the ratio prescribed by Government. The fixation of ratio must be founded upon the population of 'local areas' as per Para 8(4) of Order of 2018.
68. The conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute is to seek the 'intention' of its maker. Justice G.P.Singh in his celebrated book 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' stated that the intention of law maker assimilates two aspects. In one aspect, it carries the concept of 'meaning' and in another aspect, it conveys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object'. 43
SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch
69. 'Each word, phrase and sentence' observed MUKHERJEA,J 'is to be construed in the light of general purpose of Act itself' (see Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras 9).
70. In the words of CHINAPPA REDDY.J, 'interpretation must depend on the text and context. They are bases of interpretation. One may well say if text is the texture, context is what gives colour. Neither can be ignored. That interpretation is best which makes the textural interpretation match the contextual. A statute is best interpreted when you know why it was enacted (see Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. 10).
71. The words of wisdom by KRISHNA IYER, J are: 'to be literal in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. The judicial key to construction is the composite perception of deha and dehi of the provision (see Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee 11)'.
72. Reverting back to statute in hand i.e., Order of 2018, it is apt to see that law maker intended to make certain provisions mandatory. For instance, Paras 3(2), 6(1), 8(1),(2),(3) and (4) are pregnant with the word 'shall'. Thus it is imperative for the 9 1953 AIR 274 10 1987 AIR 1023 11 (1977) 2 SCC 256 44 SP, J & RRN, J Wp_19341_2023 & batch Department to treat each district as a local area, provide reservation to local candidates as per ratio based on population of 'local areas'. If we accept the interpretation advanced by the petitioners, no ratio based upon population of 'local areas' can be prescribed and mandate ingrained in para 8(4) will vanish in thin air. Applying the litmus test of textual and contextual interpretation, such an interpretation suggested by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
73. In view of foregoing analysis, in our considered opinion, the action of the respondents is in consonance with the spirit of Article 371D of the Constitution and Order of 2018. We are unable to hold that the impugned Clauses/Table of G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, and Note-1 below para of 2B of notification dated 25.04.2022 are bad in law. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere in these Writ Petitions.
74. The Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ SUJOY PAUL, J _____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 28th August, 2024.
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o. TJMR/GVR