Telangana High Court
K.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy vs The State Of Telangana on 12 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.2711 OF 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a Writ Order or Orders, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the impugnedMemo.No.589/JL.Rectt/2022dt.03-12-2023 issued by 2nd respondent while accepting to consider the edit option dt.09-09-2023 pertaining to community social status as "EWS" in the place of "OC" for the purpose of future Notifications and rejecting the same to consider for the Notification No.22/2022 dt.09.12.2022 is unreasonable, irrational and unjust and set aside the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to accept the above edit option from this Notification No.22/2022 dt.09.12.2022 itself instead from future notifications and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of Junior Lecturer in Hindi as per his merit and rank under EWS category with all consequential benefits..."
2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at admission stage with the consent of the respective parties.
3. Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Telangana State Public Service Commission.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in response to Notification No.22 of 2022 dated 09.12.2022 issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner has applied for the post of Junior Lecturer. Though the petitioner belongs to EWS category, since he did 2 PK,J wp_2711_2024 not possess an EWS Certificate, he could not avail the benefit of EWS. It is further submitted that the petitioner has applied for EWS certificate and after receipt of information regarding issuance of the same, he has utilized the edit option and edited his application mentioning that he belongs to EWS category. Thereafter, he has obtained the said EWS certificate on 11.09.2023. However, the said change in the application and the EWS certificate of the petitioner were not considered by respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of filing W.P.No.30246 of 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2023 directing respondent No.2 therein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 12.09.2023 and pass appropriate orders thereon.
5. It is further submitted that pursuant to the said order dated 31.10.2023, respondent No.2 has considered the said representation of the petitioner and rejected his claim vide order in Memo.No.589/JL Rectt/2022 dated 03.12.2023. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr., 1 submits that the petitioner is entitled to be considered under EWS category. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the said recruitment process is still going on. As such, he sought liberty to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents and prayed this Court to direct 1 AIR 2016 SC 1098 3 PK,J wp_2711_2024 respondent No.2 to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law.
6. Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submits that respondent No.2 will consider the representation of the petitioner as and when it is received, and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
7. Having regard to the rival submissions made by the respective parties, admittedly, the selection process is still going on. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (referred supra), held that candidate submitting caste certificate after cut- off date mentioned in the advertisement, cannot be held ineligible for selection to the post as the Constitutional concept of reservation is brought into force to remove inequality in public employment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra). In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the O.B.C. certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of O.B.C. category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India4 as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University & Ors.5. The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra), wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate. 3
4. 1992 (Supp) 3 SCC 217 : (AIR 1993 SC 477)
5. (1996) 3 SCC 545 : (AIR 1996 SC 1011) ...4
PK,J wp_2711_2024
16. In our considered view, the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra) wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14,15,16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SC/ST and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in the cases of Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul (supra). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 382 of 2009 is hereby restored.
8. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to respondent No.2, ventilating his grievance, within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, respondent No.2 is directed to re- consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case (referred supra) without reference to the impugned order dated 03.12.2023, within a period of three (03) weeks thereof and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner.
5
PK,J wp_2711_2024 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date: 12.02.2024 GSP