Telangana High Court

Pothuganti Swamy vs State Of Telangana on 6 December, 2022

Bench: N.V.Shravan Kumar

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

                       W.P. No.19981 of 2020

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus

declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, TSSPDCL, in not issuing

the appointment orders, in order of the merit list, to the petitioners

though they secured merit and successfully completed Pole Test for

Junior Linemen Posts in pursuance of the Notification No.1/2019,

dated 28.09.2019 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct

the respondents to issue appointment orders to the petitioners.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they have completed

Industrial Trade Institute (ITI) Electrician Trade. Pursuant to the

Notification No.1 of 2019, dated 28.09.2019, the petitioners have

applied for the post of Junior Linemen, secured different ranks,

have attended for interview and succeeded in pole climbing test also.

The 2nd respondent, without assigning any reason, deleted the names

of the petitioners from the merit list and issued appointment orders to

some of their colleagues. In this regard, the petitioners made

representation dated 12.10.2020 to consider the grievance of the

petitioners but the respondents have neither issued any appointment

orders to the petitioners nor passed any orders on the said

representation. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.

NVSK, J

3. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, while denying the averments

made in the writ affidavit, filed counter affidavit, inter alia, stating that

pursuant to the notification dated 28.09.2019, all the petitioners have

applied and in the said notification it is categorically mentioned that

the applicants must possess the requisite qualifications as on the date

of notification. Further, against the column of "do you possess

qualification and eligibility as per the notification", all the petitioners

have mentioned "Yes". Accordingly, applications of the petitioners

were processed in accordance with the procedure and they were

figured in the merit list at appropriate places and called them for

further procedure. However, while scrutinizing the educational

qualification certificates furnished by the petitioners, it was found that

the petitioners had acquired ITI qualification in the month of

November, 2019, i.e., after the date of issuance of the Notification No.1

of 2019 dated 28.09.2019. Therefore, the candidature of the

petitioners for issuance of appointment orders were not considered

since they did not possess the eligibility qualifications as on the date

of the notification as prescribed in Para-I of Clause (3) of the

notification dated 28.09.2019. Thus, there are no merits in the writ

petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. In reply to the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent,

the petitioners have filed reply affidavit, inter alia, stating that the

subject notification was issued on 28.09.2019 and the last date of

receipt of application is 10.11.2019. According to the said notification NVSK, J

rules, all the petitioners are eligible for the Junior Linemen Post and

for the same their certificates are showing clear eligibility.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu appearing

for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel Sri G.Vidya Sagar

appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the material made

available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the writ and

reply averments and in support of his claim, he placed reliance on the

judgments rendered in Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of

Delhi) and others1, B.A. Linga Reddy and others Vs. Karnataka

State Transport Authority and others2, S. Krishna Sradha Vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh and others3, State of U.P. Vs. U.P. State

Law Officers' Association4, E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

and Another5, and East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev

Appa Rao and others6 and submitted that the petitioners are eligible

for appointment as Junior Linemen post.

7. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Sri G.Vidya

Sagar appearing for the 2nd respondent also placed reliance on the

very same judgment of Rakesh Kumar Sharma, on supra, and

submitted that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a

(2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 58

(2015) 4 Supreme Court Cases 515

(2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 465

1994(1) SCT 863

(1974) 4 Supreme Court Cases 3

(2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678 NVSK, J

person would possess qualification only as on the date of declaration

of the result but not as on the date he appeared for the examination,

in other words, the result of the examination does not relate back to

the date of examination. He also brought to the notice of this Court

that with respect to the same notification and in similar set of facts

this Court passed the order on 04.01.2021 in W.P. No.24567 of 2020.

8. The only issue arises for consideration in this writ petition is

that whether the petitioners are eligible for appointment to the post of

Junior Linemen post or not?

9. The following are the relevant dates furnished in the material

papers.

      a) Date of notification No.1 of 2019 :     28.09.2019

      b) Number of vacancies                :    2500

      c) Starting date for payment of fee   :    21.10.2019

d) Starting date of application submission: 22.10.2019

e) Last date for payment of fee online : 10.11.2019

f) Downloading of Hall Tickets from : 05.12.2019

g) Date of examination : 15.12.2019

Educational Qualifications:

Applicants must possess the qualifications from a recognized

Institution/BOARD as detailed below or equivalent thereto, as on the

date of Notification.

                                                                      NVSK, J





 Name of the                    Educational Qualification
    Post

Must possess SSLC/SSC/10th Class with I.T.I. Junior qualification in Electrical Trade / Wireman or 2 years Lineman Intermediate Vocational course in Electrical Trade only from a recognized Institution/Board of combined A.P/Telangana State Educational Department as on the date of notification.

NOTE: If there is any deviation from the above qualification for the above post, the candidates shall produce the equivalency certificate from the authority issuing the qualification certificate viz Secretary of the Institute/Board for accepting his application.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners drawn the attention of

this Court to the certificates issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, National Trade

Certificate wherein mentioned that the having passed All India Trade

Test Month July, 2019 and the date of certificate was mentioned as

06.11.2019.

11. Having gone through the material on record and the

submissions made by the learned counsel on either side,

the main contention of the petitioners is that they are eligible for

recruitment to the post of Junior Linemen as they acquired the

requisite qualification for the said post and succeeded in the

subsequent tests that were conducted by the respondents. But, in the

notification dated 28.09.2019 at Clause (6) of Para IV, it was

specifically mentioned that the claim of the candidates with regard to

the date of birth, educational/technical qualifications and community

are accepted only provisionally on the information furnished by them

in their application form and is subject to the verification and NVSK, J

satisfaction of TSSPDCL. Mere admission to any test or inclusion of

the name of the candidate in a merit list will not confer on the

candidate any right for appointment. The candidature is therefore,

provisional at all the stages and TSSPDCL reserves the right to reject

the candidature at any stage of the selection even after the advise has

been made. Though the petitioners participated and succeeded in the

tests that were conducted by the respondents, the petitioners did not

possess the requisite qualification as on the date of notification.

In the said notification at Para-III it was categorically mentioned that

the applicants must possess the qualifications from a recognized

Institution/Board as on the date of notification.

12. A perusal of the certificates issued by the Government of India,

Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, National Trade

Certificate states that the date of certificate is mentioned as dated

06.11.2019. Though they acquired the required qualification but the

same was acquired after the date of issuance of the said notification.

Further, with respect to the information furnished by the petitioners

in their applications that they were allowed to participate in the tests

conducted by the respondents, taking into consideration the relevant

preconditions mentioned in Clause (6) of Para IV i.e. the claim of the

candidates with regard to the educational/technical qualifications are

accepted only provisionally on the information furnished by them in

their application form and is subject to the verification and

satisfaction of TSSPDC and the mere admission to any test or NVSK, J

inclusion of the name of the candidate in a merit list will not confer on

the candidate any right for appointment, this writ petition is liable to

be dismissed on the ground that the petitioners did not meet the

requisite qualification as on the date of notification and it could be

said that the process of selection has been taken up in a fair and

transparent manner.

13. Further, having gone through the judgments referred by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, except the judgment rendered in

Rakesh Kumar Sharma's case on supra, all the judgments are not

applicable to the present case as they were dealt with the different

aspects that are not at all applicable to the present case. The learned

counsel for the petitioners placed reliance in the case of Rakesh

Kumar Sharma, one supra, at Paras No.12, 13 and 14, which reads

as under:

"12. In U.P. Public Service Commission v. Alpana, ((1994) 2 SCC 723) this Court, after considering a large number of its earlier judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on the last date for receipt of applications by the Commission. That too was a case where the result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. This Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of applications, therefore, a candidate, whose result has not been declared up to the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible.

NVSK, J

13. A three-Judge Bench of this Court M.V. Nair v. Union of India held as under: (SCC p.434, para 9) "9. ... It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date."

14. In Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions (1995 Supp (4) SCC 706), this Court held: (SCC p.707, para 2) "2. ... It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications. Such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to the rules."

14. From the above paras, it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court while rendering the judgment in the said case, had taken into

consideration the various its earlier judgments and from the above

order, it appears that the issues discussed and declared are not

supporting the case of the petitioners.

15. However, the learned Senior Counsel Sri G.Vidya Sagar also

placed reliance on the very same case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma one

supra, at Paras No.12, 19 and 21, which are necessary to extract.

To avoid the repetition, para No.12 is not extracted but paras No.19

and 21 are extracted, which reads as under:

NVSK, J

19. In Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab this Court placing reliance on various earlier judgments of this Court held: (SCC p. 268, para 13) "13. ... The High Court has held (i) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be AKS,J W.P.No.24567 of 2020 4 satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; (ii) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. The view taken by the High Court is supported by several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with.

21. In the instant case, the applicant did not possess the requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application though he applied representing that he possessed the same. The letter of offer of appointment was issued to him which was provisional and conditional subject to the verification of educational qualification i.e. eligibility, character verification, etc. Clause-11 of the letter of offer of appointment dated 23.02.2009 made it clear that in case character is not certified or he did not possess the qualification, the services will be terminated. The legal proposition that emerges from the selected position of law as enumerated above is that the result of the examination does not relate back to the date of examination. A person would possess qualification only on the date of declaration of the result. Thus, in view of NVSK, J

the above, no exception can be taken to the judgment of the High Court."

16. From the above paras, it is clear that a person would be deemed

to have possessed the qualification only from the date of declaration of

the result. In the case on hand, admittedly, the petitioners have

acquired the requisite qualification to the post of Junior Linemen only

after issuance of notification dated 28.09.2019. Further, this Court in

the order dated 04.01.2021 in W.P. No.24567 of 2020 held as under:

"This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the considered view that, admittedly, the petitioners have acquired the requisite qualification on 05.11.2019 i.e., only after issuance of Notification on 28.09.2019 and hence they are not entitled for consideration of their cases for appointment to the posts of Junior Lineman, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA'S case (supra).