The State Of Telangana vs Ashok Singati
2021 Latest Caselaw 4165 Tel

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4165 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 December, 2021

Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Ashok Singati on 7 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                   AND
           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT APPEAL No.76 of 2021


JUDGMENT:   (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 05.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.13890      of    2020       (Ashok        Singati       v.       State    of

Telangana and another).

     The facts of the case reveal that the respondent

before this Court, Sri Ashok Singati, who is an

ex-serviceman, submitted an application pursuant to the

Notification dated 31.05.2018 for filling up the posts of

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable (Civil). He

has secured 74 marks in the overall selection process

and the select list was declared on 24.09.2019. The last

candidate selected was also having 74 marks. However,

no appointment order was issued in his favour. The

appointment order was issued in respect of some other

person who was also having 74 marks, as he was senior

in age. The respondent before this Court preferred the

writ petition stating that his case could not have been

rejected in the manner and method it has been done by

the State and he should have been offered appointment

in the resultant vacancies. It was also brought to the

notice of this Court that certain persons who participated

for selection for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police as

well as for the posts of Constable were included in both

select lists and later on as they have joined the post of

Sub Inspector of Police, the vacancy created in the select

list of Police Constable ought to have been given to the

writ petitioner. He came up before this Court by filing a

writ petition and the earlier writ petition i.e.,

W.P.No.23469 of 2019 was disposed of by an order dated

11.11.2019 directing the State Government to decide the

representation of the ex-serviceman and the State

Government has rejected the representation by an order

dated 25.01.2020 stating that the resultant vacancies

would be added in the next Notification. The writ

petitioner/respondent in the present appeal has

preferred the second writ petition and the undisputed

facts reveal that the ex-servicemen who participated for

the post of Sub Inspector of Police as well as Constable

were considered for the posts and two distinct select lists

were prepared, one for the post of Sub Inspector of Police,

which was published on 12.07.2019 and the second list

was in respect of Police Constable published on

24.09.2019. Two candidates, namely, Sri Annireddy

Kondal Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, were

included in both the lists i.e., in the list of Police

Constables as well as Sub Inspectors of Police and later

on, Sri Vangara Rajinikanth was appointed as Sub

Inspector of Police, leaving one post vacant in the cadre

of Police Constable. The writ petitioner prayed before the

learned Single Judge that the aforesaid vacancy cannot

be treated as filled up vacancy and could not have been

forwarded to the next selection. The learned Single

Judge has allowed the writ petition. The operative

portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

reproduced as under:-

"This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that the respondents have initially prepared selected list of Police Constables and as per the contention of the Special Government Pleader, the names of 708 candidates were mentioned in the zone of consideration in the cadre of Police Constables and the selected list of Police Constables was published only on 24.09.2019. If the selected list of Police Constables was published subsequent to the selected list of S.I. of Police, this Court is unable to understand as to how the names of these two candidates i.e., Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth were shown in both the selected lists of S.I. of Police as well as Police Constables. If the above said two individuals i.e., Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth were already been shown in the selected list of S.I. of Police, then the respondents ought not to have reflected their names in the selected list of Police Constables. Even according to the Special Government Pleader, one Sri Vangara Rajinikanth was selected for the post of S.I. of Police, after his explanation has been accepted by the respondents, they ought to have considered the case of the petitioner, who is equally meritorious, who has secured 74 marks as secured by Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, the question of rejecting the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 would

not arise. In the instant case, no appointment order was issued to Sri Vangara Rajinikanth as a Police Constable. Only when appointment orders are issued to the selected candidates and if such a candidate joins the said post, then the application of G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 would arise. But, in the instant case, as Sri Vangara Rajinikanth was never issued appointment order, application of G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 would not arise, at all. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the resultant vacancy caused due to the selection and appointment of Sri Vangara Rajinikanth as S.I. of Police.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Police Constable in the resultant vacancy caused by Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, who was selected and appointed as S.I. of Police, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed."

This Court has carefully gone through the

documents on record and undisputedly, pursuant to the

Notification dated 31.05.2018, two select lists were

prepared, one for Sub Inspectors of Police on 12.07.2019

and second for the Police Constables on 24.09.2019.

Two persons, Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri

Vangara Rajinikanth, were included in both the lists and

later on, one of them, Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, was

appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. The undisputed

facts also reveal that Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri

Vangara Rajinikanth also received 74 marks in the

process of selection for the post of Police Constable and

as Sri Vangara Rajinikanth was appointed as Sub

Inspector of Police, the post could not have been treated

as filled up by any stretch of imagination and in those

circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in

allowing the writ petition. This Court does not find any