Telangana High Court
Southern Power Distribution ... vs Ch. Siva And Another on 14 July, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, Surepalli Nanda
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT APPEAL No.355 of 2020
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel for
the appellant and Mr. K.Rama Subba Rao, learned counsel for
the 1st respondent.
2. This intra-court appeal is directed against the
order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing Writ Petition No.32158 of 2018 filed by the 1st
respondent.
3. The related writ petition was filed by the 1st
respondent seeking the following reliefs:
".........to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in
not filling up the total vacancies notified i.e., 28 including
that of Vacancy meant for BC-D in Nalgonda District, as
illegal, arbitrary, contrary to notification and also
violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India by
issuing appropriate writ, order or direction more
particularly in the nature of Mandamus and
2 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.355 of 2020
consequently direct the Respondent to consider the case
of the petitioner for appointment as Sub-Engineer
(Electrical), BC-D Roster point in Nalgonda District in
accordance with his merit by operating the merit list
downwards in pursuance of the notification No.01/2016
till the posts notified are filled up forthwith and to pass
such............."
4. The above relief was sought for in the back drop of
the pleaded facts which can be summarized as under:
5. Appellant had issued notification bearing
No.1/2016 for filling up the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical).
1st respondent filed application for the said post under the
BC-D category. Following the selection process, merit list was
published. In the merit list, 1st respondent's position was
129. According to 1st respondent, candidates belonging to
BC-D category securing more marks were already appointed
under the open category. Some other candidates did not
attend the verification process. Therefore, 1st respondent was
the next candidate in the BC-D category in order of merit.
With the grievance that without considering his case against
the unfilled vacancy in the BC-D category, appellant had
sought to close the recruitment process.
3 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.355 of 2020
6. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that it
would not follow the waiting list posts which were
relinquished and where selected candidates did not join,
vacancies would be notified later on. Reliance was placed on
G.O.Ms.No.81 dated 22.02.1997 of the State of Telangana in
the General Administration (Ser.A) Department. Therefore,
case of 1st respondent was not considered.
7. On due consideration, learned Single Judge held
as follows:
"This Court, having considered the rival
submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties, is of the considered view that the fact
that the petitioner has secured 129th rank and the
petitioner is the next meritorious candidate to be
appointed under BC-D category was admitted by the
respondents in the counter and in the counter it is also
stated that there are 6 unfilled vacancies. The contention
of the learned Standing counsel that the relinquish posts
and non-joining posts will be notified in the next
recruitment notification as per B.P.Ms.No.100, dated
28.07.1997 is concerned, there are 6 unfilled and non-
joining posts and the said posts are not filled up by the
respondent. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed
directing the respondents to consider the case of the
4 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.355 of 2020
petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer
(Electrical) in the unfilled vacancy. No costs."
8. According to learned Single Judge, the record
disclosed that 1st respondent was the next meritorious
candidate in the BC-D category. He also found that there
were all total six unfilled vacancies. After noting that there
were altogether six unfilled vacancies and non-joining posts
which were not filled up by the appellant, learned Single
Judge directed the appellant to consider the case of the 1st
respondent for appointment to the post of Sub-Engineer
(Electrical) in the unfilled vacancy.
9. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view
taken by the learned Single Judge. We are fortified in our
view by a decision of the Supreme Court in Munja Praveen v.
State of Telangana, Civil Appeal No.10583-10585 of 2017,
decided on 17.08.2017. In the said decision, Supreme Court
had considered G.O.Ms.No.81, General Administration (Ser.A)
Department, dated 22.02.1997 and was of the view that the
G.O.Ms. would come into operation only after appointment
letters were issued. Explaining the situation, Supreme Court
5 HCJ & SNJ
W.A.No.355 of 2020
observed that if a person who is in number one position and
is given appointment letter, he cannot go to other
Corporations for verification of certificate even if he is
selected. That would not mean that the first post in all the
Corporations would lie vacant, which is unjust and not at all
pragmatic.
10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and
on due consideration, we find no good ground to interfere
with the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. No
case for interference is made out.
11. Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, in the Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ
_________________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
Date: 14.07.2022
KL
