Telangana High Court
S. Vasundara vs The State Of Telangana on 24 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.3853 OF 2017
ORDER
In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner is challenging the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in CCLA's Ref.No.A2/1269/2013 dt.20.02.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and is praying to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Village Revenue Assistant as she is the next meritorious candidate in S.C. category with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR) are that the respondents have issued a Notification to fill up the posts of Village Revenue Assistants. The petitioner belongs to S.C. Madiga community and she participated in the written examination and secured 44 marks and stood at 27th rank in the combined merit list and second in the S.C. category. It is submitted that the candidate who stood above the petitioner in the S.C. category had obtained S.C. community certificate fraudulently and was appointed to the post of Village Revenue W.P.(TR) No.3853 of 2017 2 Assistant. On receipt of certain complaints against her, the matter was enquired into and the competent authority has cancelled her appointment on 11.05.2013. The petitioner on coming to know about the same, made a representation on 24.06.2013 to the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider her claim for appointment to the post of Village Revenue Assistant in the said vacancy since she was a genuine S.C. candidate and was the next meritorious candidate in the S.C. category. However, the 4th respondent has sought clarification from the 3rd respondent on this issue and the 3rd respondent sought clarification from the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent by proceedings dt.20.02.2014, has rejected the claim of the petitioner by holding that the said vacancy has to be notified in the next recruitment. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.3108 of 2015 and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has been transferred to the High Court and numbered as W.P. (TR) No.3853 of 2017.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The District W.P.(TR) No.3853 of 2017 3 Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District Selection Committee, Nizamabad and others Vs. B. Annapurna 1 in support of his contention that where an appointment has been cancelled due to bogus certificates being submitted by the candidate, such post will not be called as a fall out vacancy and the same has to be considered for appointment by next meritorious candidate. He also placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M. Raj Sekhar Vs. State of Telangana and others 2, wherein while considering the decisions of various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has culled out certain points for consideration as under:
"16. In matters of recruitment, preparation of merit list and operation of the merit list, principles culled out from the above decisions, are as under:
(1) Selection process culminates only when an order of appointment is issued to a validly selected candidate;
(2) Once selection list is drawn and appointment orders are issued to all the selected candidates and entire select list is exhausted, question of operating waiting list to fill fallout vacancy does not arise;
(3) A vacancy can be treated as fallout vacancy only when a validly selected candidate receives appointment order, but 1 W.P.No.21306 of 2005 dt.04.09.2006 2 2021 (1) ALD 144 (TS) W.P.(TR) No.3853 of 2017 4 does not join or joins but resigns to the post/relinquishes the post;
(4) If no appointment order is issued against notified vacancy to a candidate in the select list for any reason, including not reporting for certificate verification, it does not amount to exhausting the merit list and such vacancy is not a fallout vacancy;
(5) Even when appointment orders are issued against all vacancies, but on verification of certificates of eligibility such as disability, educational qualification, social status etc., if selection of a candidate is cancelled, the vacancy cannot be treated as a fallout vacancy. In other words, but for wrong declaration/claim, the candidate could not have been included in the merit list and therefore the other meritorious candidate who fits into particular category/criteria, ignored earlier because of such wrong declaration/claim, should not be deprived of his entitlement for appointment.
(6) Merely because a candidate is included in the merit list no indefeasible right would accrue to him to claim appointment and it is for the employer to utilise the merit list partially or fully. However, if the employer decides against filling all or any of the vacancies notified, he has to assign reasons in support of such decision."
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner should be considered for appointment as Village Revenue Assistant. W.P.(TR) No.3853 of 2017 5
5. Learned Government Pleader, while supporting the impugned order, submitted that the Village Revenue Assistant posts have since been abolished and therefore, it is not possible to accommodate the petitioner even if the vacancy is not to be treated as a fall out vacancy and further submitted that the post which has fallen vacant due to cancellation of appointment of earlier candidate is to be considered as a fallen vacancy and hence, the petitioner cannot be considered for the said post. He submitted that even if the petitioner were to be considered for appointment, she cannot be accommodated since the post for which she has participated is no longer available as the said posts have since been abolished.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in making a representation immediately after cancellation of the appointment of the selected candidate, i.e., Smt. V. Laxmi and also in challenging the order of the 2nd respondent before the Court. Due to lapse of time, the delay has occurred in disposal of the Writ Petition. In the meantime, the posts of Village Revenue Assistants have been abolished. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The District Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District W.P.(TR) No.3853 of 2017 6 Selection Committee, Nizamabad and others Vs. B. Annapurna (1 supra) and also the Single Judge of this Court in the case of M. Raj Sekhar Vs. State of Telangana and others (2 supra) who have considered all the legal precedents on the issue, the vacancy which has arisen on cancellation of appointment order due to submission of invalid certificates by the successful candidate, cannot be treated as a fall out vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be considered against the said vacancy being the next meritorious candidate in S.C. community. Therefore, the petitioner should be considered for appointment and even if the post of Village Revenue Assistant is now abolished, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner in any equivalent post of Village Revenue Assistant, as after abolition of the posts of Village Revenue Assistants, the existing Village Revenue Assistants have been accommodated in various other departments and in various other posts. Therefore, the petitioner shall also be considered for appointment in such other post where the existing Village Revenue Assistants have been accommodated.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition (TR) is disposed of. No order as to costs.
W.P.(TR) No.3853 of 20177
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition (TR) shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 24.07.2024 Svv