The State Of Telangana vs Thripurala Suresh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3269 Tel

     The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
                                        and
           The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
                         Writ Appeal No.63 of 2021
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The      present       appeal       is   arising      out     of   Order

dated 11.08.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.6751 of 2020.

2.      The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement was

issued in the year 2018, inviting applications for the post of

Constable in the Home Department of the State of

Telangana, the respondent/employee (writ petitioner) proved

his worth in the process of selection. He was selected as

SCT Reserve Police Constable (AR) and was deputed for

training by assigning Chest No.854 and Registration

No.1321209. The training started on 25.01.2020. The

respondent/employee became sick while on training and was

pass-ported on 12.04.2020, initially for a period of six days.

However, his medical leave was extended from 18.04.2020 to

22.04.2020. Thus, he was on medical leave for eleven days.

He reported back to the Academy after availing the medical

leave. However, he was served with Memorandum dated

29.04.2020, informing him that he was pass-ported out of

Academy and as he was on leave on medical grounds for

eleven days, he has to be under quarantine for a period of 28

days meaning thereby, his total absence would be of 39 days.

He was also advised to undergo training in the next batch.

3. The most important aspect of the case is that after

2018 till date, no further advertisement has been issued

inviting applications for the next batch. The

respondent/employee, being aggrieved by the action of the

appellants/authorities, immediately came up before this

Court by filing W.P.No.6751 of 2020 and by interim order

dated 22.05.2020, the appellants/authorities were directed to

permit the respondent/employee to join back the training.

The appellants did not comply with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. On the contrary, they filed an

application for vacating the interim order. Learned Single

Judge had finally decided the Writ Petition on merits. The

order passed by the learned Single Judge in Paragraphs 17 to

21 reads as under:

17. From the above decisions, it emerges that arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority is impermissible.

Though authority is entitled to exercise its discretion, such exercise must be well considered

and supported by reasons and non-interference is only thus far and no further. There can be no rubber-stamping of administrative authority action merely because he has discretion to take a view. Whenever, a decision is made in exercise of powers vested in the authority, it must be supported by reasons recorded in the order and uniformly applied to all similarly situated persons. In the case on hand, two similarly situated trainees are treated differently, one was allowed to resume training and another denied. Such course is plainly not permissible. Further, it is elementary that whenever an authority vested with power takes a decision affecting a person, such decision must be supported by reasons spelt out in the order. Reasons in support of the decision cannot remain in the antechamber of the mind of the decision making person.

18. Whenever a decision of the administrative authority is tested before the writ Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, its legality is examined by looking into the document as it reads but not by going into the record nor Court can assess the mind of the decision making authority. The reasons for the decision cannot be supplemented in the form of an affidavit. No justification is shown why petitioner was not allowed to resume training. Without supporting material, no assumption can be made to suspect a person as infected with virus and deny resumption of training on that ground. The order impugned does not meet the parameters of a valid decision making process and cannot stand the test of judicial scrutiny.

19. This leaves to the issue of granting relief to the petitioner. The total training of a Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Police Constable is nine months. The training commenced on 25.01.2020. Out of nine months of training, seven months of training is already over. Out of this seven months petitioner has lost four months and only two months of training is left. Petitioner cannot make up the training period lost in the remaining period of training course. He would be missing continuity of the training. As the police force requires higher standard of physical fitness and alertness, the requirement to undergo full training cannot be dispensed with and respondents cannot be directed to admit him to remaining session of the training. Therefore, by force he has to undergo training whenever a new training session commences. However, as all this has happened for no fault of him, he has to be compensated.

20. Learned counsel representing the respondents informs the Court that selections are finalized for recruitment of Trainee Police Constables in Special Police Battalions and soon after completion of training of the present batch, they would be inducted for training. He submits that the petitioner can be subjected to training with that batch.

21. The writ petition is allowed, the order impugned is set aside and the following directions are issued:

(1) The petitioner should be inducted for training along with the Stipendiary Cadet Trainee

Police Constables of Special Police Battalions whenever the training commences to them;

(2) On successful completion of training and passing all the tests conducted by the Academy, petitioner shall be given the protection of seniority and other benefits treating him as part of recruits who were subjected to training from 25.01.2020; and (3) Since As for no fault of him, petitioner lost opportunity to undergo training with his batch- mates, was made to sit idle till the next training commences and that he is not entitled to take up any other employment during the interregnum period to eke out a living, he cannot be left in the lurch. Therefore, the respondents are directed to continue to pay stipend payable to a trainee till the petitioner is admitted to training in the next batch.

22. Before parting with this case, I deem it necessary to make the following observations :

(i) As the physical training is rigorous, it is possible that some trainees may suffer injuries and become sick. If a trainee suffers some health problems, he is treated within the Academy and/or, for the reasons recorded, if it is not possible to treat a trainee within the Academy, he would be referred to a hospital as per the procedure or allowed to avail medical leave. The trainee can be pass-ported to undergo treatment outside the Academy. Once a person undergoes treatment outside the Academy/goes out of the Academy on medical leave and reports back, invariably the person should be admitted to training and then he should be dealt with in accordance with the rules

and guidelines formulated for the purpose, but candidate cannot be refused to be admitted to training, such as on the grounds mentioned in the impugned order. It may be true that some trainees may fake injury or illness only to avoid intense training. When such situation arises, it should be handled by following due process, but, it cannot be generalized.

(ii) The recruitment does not take place every year and in fact after more than two years, the present recruitment has taken place. For any reason, if a trainee misses the training with his batch-mates, he would have to wait till the next recruitment takes place and commencement of training which is uncertain. After having been selected to the Police Force, if a person is sent out by the Academy asking him to resume his training whenever the next training batch commences, he would have to be idle, and a free man left to fend himself as he does not receive even stipend when he does not undergo training and cannot take up any other employment. Further, as idle a person is not conducive to the discipline required in the Police Force.

(iii) Therefore, it may be necessary to put in place a procedure to deal with such contingencies and to ensure to the extent possible, continue to train to such persons.

4. Learned Single Judge has directed the appellants to

permit the respondent/employee to complete his training

and in open Court, learned Special Government Pleader has

stated that pursuant to the judgment delivered by the learned

Single Judge, the respondent/employee was sent on training

and he was permitted to rejoin.

5. The impugned judgment of this Court was delivered in

an extraordinary situation where the entire Globe was facing

and is facing the COVID-19 pandemic. Large number of

employees throughout India were infected with COVID-19

pandemic and they have been granted leave and the period

has been treated as period spent on duty in most of the

organisations. In the present case also, on account of

COVID-19 pandemic, and on account of insistence of the

appellants to undergo compulsory quarantine for a period of

28 days, the total absence of training was 39 days and

therefore, the learned Single Judge was certainly justified as

the training was going on, to permit the

respondent/employee to complete his training. It has also

been brought to the notice of this Court that the learned

Single Judge has also granted seniority to the

respondent/employee.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court,

respondent/employee has to be given seniority as per the

rules governing the field. However, there will be no loss of

seniority on account of the fact that he was out of training

for few days only and it was the appellants/employer, who

forced the respondent/employee to be under quarantine for

a period of 28 days. Therefore, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere with order passed by the learned Single

Judge No case for interference is made out in the matter.

7. Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Consequently,

Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand dismissed.

_______________________ Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ

____________________ A. Rajasheker Reddy, J 08.11.2021 lur