Telangana High Court

Telangana State Level Police ... vs Thota Anusha on 11 November, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy

        The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
                                           and
               The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
                           Writ Appeal No.237 of 2020

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

        The present Writ Appeal is arising out of order dated

07.01.2020, passed by the learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.16693 of

2019, directing the State Government to consider the case of

respondent No.2- Bairishetti Ashok for appointment to the post of

Sub-Inspector of Police under the ex-serviceman quota with all

consequential benefits.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Government of Telangana

has issued a Government Order i.e., G.O.Ms.No.74 dated 09.08.2012,

for appointment of meritorious sports persons and 2% of the posts

were reserved for such category. Respondent No.2 was serving in the

Indian Army as a Jawan at the relevant point of time from 06.03.2000

to 30.06.2019. His case was not considered under the ex-serviceman

quota only on the ground that, keeping in view Notification dated

31.05.2018, an ex-serviceman was supposed to be relieved within one

year from the date of Notification. At the time the notification was

issued in respect of appointment, respondent No.2 was serving in the

Indian Army and was posted in Jammu and Kashmir. He was to be

discharged from 31.03.2019. The Indian army undertook operations

of surgical strikes and on account of surgical strikes, as respondent

No.2 was defending our nation, he was not relieved by the Indian

army, and was discharged only on 30.06.2019. He submitted his

candidature after obtaining NOC from the Army authorities and

merely because he was discharged after expiry of one year, his case

was not considered under the sports quota. The learned Single Judge,

as a very hyper-technical approach was adopted by the State

Government in rejecting the candidature of respondent No.2, has

allowed the Writ Petition.

3. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is reproduced as

under:

"This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: "to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 5th respondent in not following the selection procedure contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department dated 09.08.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Sub Inspector of Police pursuant to the Notification Rc.No.89/Rect./ Admn-1/2018, dated 31.05.2018 as bad, arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to provide 2% of reservation to the Meritorious Sports Persons by implementing the guidelines issued under G.O.Ms.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culture (Sports) Department, dated 09.08.2012 and Para 21 B (iii) of Notification dated 31.05.2018 in the interest of Justice."

Heard Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.

It is the case of the petitioners that they are meritorious sports persons. As per the notification, 2% of the posts are reserved in favour of meritorious sports persons. Since the respondents are not implementing G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 9.8.2012, they have filed the present writ petition.

During pendency of the writ petition, I.A.No.2 of 2019 is filed seeking amendment of the prayer and the same is ordered today vide separate order.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that 2nd petitioner is a meritorious sports person and also an Ex- service man and he served in the Indian Army as Jawan from 06.03.2000 to 30.06.2019. But, his case was not considered under Ex-servicemen quota on the ground that as per the notification dated 31.5.2018, Ex-servicemen were supposed to be relieved within one year from the date of notification. At the time of issuance of the notification, the 2nd petitioner was serving the Indian Army and discharging his duties in Jammu and Kashmir and he should have been discharged from the Indian Army by 31st March, 2019. Due to the surgical strikes, the 2nd petitioner could not be discharged from the Indian Army within the time stipulated in the notification and he was discharged from duty on 30.06.2019. It is further contended that the 2nd petitioner has submitted his application through proper channel after obtaining 'No Objection Certificate'. But the respondents have not considered the case of the 2nd petitioner on the ground that he was discharged from the Indian Army after expiry of one year from the date of notification. It is prayed that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the 1st petitioner under meritorious sports persons quota by strictly following G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 9.8.2012 and further directing the respondents to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner under Ex-servicemen quota.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that as far as 1st petitioner is concerned, in the notification, it is clearly mentioned that the respondents would follow only marks and no where it is stated that they would follow G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 9.8.2012. Since the 1st petitioner has not secured the marks as set out in the notification, his case was not considered. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, his case could not be considered under Ex-servicemen quota as he was discharged from the Indian Army after one year from the date of notification.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that insofar as the 1st petitioner, his case cannot be considered under meritorious

sports quota, as he has not secured the marks stipulated in the notification. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the 1st petitioner.

As far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, his claim under meritorious sports quota is also rejected. However, his case can be considered under Ex-servicemen quota. As his case was rejected on the ground that he could not be relieved from the Indian Army by 31.3.2019 due to surgical strikes, this Court had directed the learned Assistant Solicitor General to get instructions as to whether the Army Personnel were relieved during the period of surgical strikes or not. Learned Assistant Solicitor General had produced the proceedings dated 20th December, 2019, wherein the 4 Commanding Officer, 177 Medium Regiment, clarified that the Army Personnel could not be discharged from the Indian Army due to the surgical strikes and at the relevant point of time, the 2nd petitioner was discharging his duties in Jammu and Kashmir. In view of the said clarification, this Court is of the view that the case of the 2nd petitioner can be considered under Ex- servicemen quota.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under Ex- servicemen quota with all consequential benefits. In respect of the 1st petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."

4. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. Respondent No.2 was due for discharge on

31.03.2019 and he was very much eligible for consideration of

appointment at the relevant point of time. However, only because he

was required to protect sovereignty and integrity of our nation, his

discharge was extended upto 30.06.2019, keeping in view the surgical

strikes conducted by the Indian army and therefore, the learned Single

Judge was certainly justified in treating his candidature as within the

Rules and as per the notification dated 31.05.2018. The learned Single

Judge has directed the respondents in the writ petition to consider the

case of respondent No.2 herein- Bairishetti Ashok for appointment to

the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the guise of ex-serviceman