M. Vijay Das vs The Telangana State Southern ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3074 Tel

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



                       WRIT APPEAL No.89 of 2021


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


     The present writ appeal is arising out of an order

dated 18.08.2020 passed in W.P.No.12549 of 2020.

     The facts of the case reveal that an advertisement

was issued on 28.09.2019 for recruitment to the post of

Junior Lineman and the appellant participated in the

process     of     selection.        A     merit      list    was      published.

However, he was not appointed because he got less

marks. He submitted a representation on 13.07.2020 to

the employer stating that the benefit of past experience

has not been taken into account while preparing the

merit list and, therefore, his matter be reviewed.                              The

respondents have not at all reviewed the case of the

appellant, nor any appointment was issued and

therefore, he came up before this Court with a writ

petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the

writ petition. Paragraph 5 of the order passed by the

learned Single Judge reads as under:-

"Admittedly, petitioner was aware that he has to disclose his contract service employment in the application form. Once he enters 'YES' against the relevant column, the application form requires

furnishing of further details. But, the petitioner stated 'NO' for the reasons best known to him and he did not make any effort subsequently to rectify the said mistake. Petitioner was having 13 years service by the time recruitment notification was issued and was already appointed as Artisan. Therefore, petitioner cannot plead ignorance, more particularly on the aspect of awarding weightage of marks to contract service/service on outsourcing basis. This aspect has long history and is based on settlements arrived by the Managements and the Unions representing the contract employees and out sourcing employees. For the reasons best known, petitioner himself opted out from claiming the contract service. Even assuming that it was a bona fide mistake committed by the petitioner, he ought to have been diligent in making application for rectification of the mistake immediately. He kept quiet, participated in the selections and allowed the entire selection process to be finalized. At this stage, after publication of final merit list, if the request of the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to re-drawing the merit list and it may have cascading effect on the entire recruitment process and may also result in deleting the name of another candidate to accommodate the petitioner. No such direction can be issued, when impact is more severe than the claim of petitioner. Thus, I do not see any ground to grant the relief sought in the writ petition at this stage.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed."

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the

appellant himself, while submitting the application form

in response to the advertisement dated 28.09.2019, has

categorically stated under the past experience column

that he does not have any experience by mentioning 'NO'

against the column and in those circumstances, the

benefit of past experience was not given to him.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned

Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition.

No case for interference is made out in the matter

keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case. The admission is denied.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. The

miscellaneous applications pending in this writ appeal, if

any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to

costs.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 28.10.2021 vs