Telangana State Public Service ... vs Ganta Swapna And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 3282 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                               W.A.No.100 of 2021

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



        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

31.12.2019 passed in W.P.No.32084 of 2018.

        The undisputed facts of the case reveal that respondent

No.1, who was the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge,

is a person with disability (hearing impaired) and has submitted

her application pursuant to a Notification dated 10.10.2017 issued

by the Telangana Public Service Commission for the post of

Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II. In the aforesaid

Notification, one post was exclusively reserved under the category

of persons with disability (hearing handicapped) in the local cadre

of Nalgonda. Respondent No.1 in the present appeal was a

meritorious candidate. She, as per her performance, was placed in

the merit list within the zone of consideration for being appointed

as Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II. However, because she

has not opted for Nalgonda District and has given preference to

other Districts, such as Karimnagar, Khammam and

Warangal, she was not considered for being appointed as

Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II, though a vacancy was

earmarked for physically handicapped person in Nalgonda District.

Learned counsel appearing for the Telangana Public Service

Commission, in open court, has stated that there is no other

candidate, except respondent No.1/writ petitioner, available under

the reserved category.

As respondent No.1/writ petitioner was not being appointed

and her candidature was rejected on 13.06.2018, solely on the

ground that she has not given preference in respect of Nalgonda

District, she came up before this court by filing a writ petition. The

learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition. The order

passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:-

"...Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner has to be considered in terms of Paragraph No.8 clause 5 of the notification, which makes it clear that the Commission has the power to assign a successful candidate to any of the notified posts for which he/she is qualified and eligible subject to fulfilling the selection criterion. The respondents cannot reject the case of the petitioner on the ground that she has not exercised the option to Nalgonda District. Clause 2 of Paragraph No.8 has to be read along with Clause 5 of Paragraph No.8. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that the selection will be made based on the rank in the merit list and in tune with Clause 5. Clause 5 of Paragraph No.8 of the notification makes it clear that the Commission has the power to assign a successful candidate to any of the notified posts for which he/she is qualified and eligible, subject to fulfilling the selection criterion. In the case on hand, the petitioner is a successful candidate and she is coming within the zone of consideration as per the merit list for the un-filled post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II, which is earmarked for Hearing Handicapped quota. Her case cannot be rejected merely because she has not given any preference for local Nalgonda District. Therefore, the impugned rejection order is liable to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned rejection order is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II in the unfilled vacancy under Hearing Handicapped quota in Nalgonda District and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

In Clause 5 of Para-VIII of the Notification itself, it was

clearly mentioned that the preference opted by candidates in

respect of posts, District etc., are only indicative for being

considered to the extent possible, but not binding or limiting the

Commission's powers under Articles 315 and 320 of the

Constitution of India. Meaning thereby, the Commission was

having power to assign a successful candidate to any District

irrespective of the option given by her/him.

In the present case, there is no other candidate available,

who has been selected for the post reserved under the category of

persons with disability (hearing handicapped) and therefore, the

learned Single Judge was certainly justified in directing the

respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for

appointment to the post of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II

under the unfilled vacancy reserved under the category of persons

with disability (hearing handicapped). This court does not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal,

if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 08.11.2021 JSU