Telangana High Court

The Telangana Residential ... vs Saluvadi Sumalatha And Another on 3 March, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                             AND
    HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

            W.A.Nos.465 of 2020 & 58 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT:     (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)


     These two Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the

order passed in W.P.No.947 of 2020 dt.04-09-2020.


      2.   Heard   the      learned           Advocate             General

appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.465 of 2020 and

Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the

appellant in W.A.No.58 of 2021 and Sri J.R.Manohar

Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in both the

Writ Appeals.

3. The facts as stated in W.A.No.58 of 2021 are

hereunder discussed for the convenience.

4. The appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in

W.P.No.947 of 2020, had contended that she has filed

the Writ Petition contending that she is a member,

belonging to Zone-V and she is also a member belongs

to Schedule Caste community. It has been further

contended by the appellant that she and the Writ

Petitioner/2nd respondent were fully eligible and

qualified to be appointed to the post of Junior Lecturer

under Telangana Residential Educational Institutions

Recruitment Board (for short 'TREI-RB') and the

TREI-RB issued recruitment notification for filling up

various posts of Junior Lecturers in various disciplines

vide Notification No.3 of 2018 dt.31-07-2018. The

appellant had further contended that she and the 2nd

respondent have responded to the said recruitment

notification and she has secured more marks than the

2nd respondent and she was declared to have secured

rank No.35 whereas the 2nd respondent/Writ Petitioner

was declared to have secured rank No.49. As the

appellant is belonging to Zone-V, she has given 1st

option to Zone-V and 2nd option to Zone VI. The

TREI-RB has selected and appointed the appellant as

Junior Lecturer in Zone-VI against SC (W) roster point.

The Writ Petitioner/2nd respondent has challenged the

selection of appellant by filing W.P.No.947 of 2020

before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this

Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and the

selection and appointment of the appellant as Junior

Lecturer in Zoology in Zone-VI was set aside and the

TREI-RB was directed to redraw the merit list for the

post of Junior Lecturer in Zone-VI comprising local

candidates of Zone-VI only, to the vacancies earmarked

to be filled up by local candidates of Zone-VI and if the

2nd respondent is found to be the next meritorious

candidate, to appoint her against the said post.

Aggrieved by the same, the TREI-RB has filed

W.A.No.465 of 2020 and the 2nd respondent in Writ

Petition has filed W.A.No.58 of 2021.

5. The appellants had further contended that

the posts which were notified by the TREI-RB were to

be filled up by following A.P. Public Employment

(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct

Recruitment) Order, 1975 (for short 'the Presidential

Order') and the posts of Junior Lecturers are to be

filled up in the ratio of 30:70, and 30% are meant for

unreserved and 70% are to be filled up by the local

candidates.

6. Admittedly in the instant case, as the

appellant in W.A.No.58 of 2021 has secured more

marks than the 2nd respondent/Writ Petitioner, the

TREI-RB has rightly appointed the appellant as Junior

Lecturer in Zoology. Therefore, appropriate orders be

passed in the Writ Appeals by setting aside the orders

of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.947 of 2020

dt.04-09-2020 with all consequential benefits.

7. Learned Advocate General appearing for

TREI-RB had contended that the appellant in

W.A.No.58 of 2021 was rightly appointed in the post of

Junior Lecturer in Zoology as she has secured more

merit than the 2nd respondent/Writ Petitioner and as

per the options of the appellant, the appellant was

adjusted in Zone-VI. Therefore, learned Single Judge

erred in interfering with the selection and appointment

of the appellant and appropriate orders be passed in

the Writ Appeals by setting aside the orders of the

learned Single Judge and uphold the appointment of

the appellant as Junior Lecturer in Zoology.

8. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in

W.A.No.58 of 2021/Writ Petitioner has contended that

the Writ Petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste

community and also a member belonging to Zone-VI

and there were more meritorious candidates than the

appellant in W.A.No.58 of 2021 in Zone-VI and the

unreserved vacancies were to be filled up with more

meritorious candidates than the appellant and

admittedly in the instant case, there were three

meritorious candidates than the appellant in Zone-VI,

and the persons who have secured more merit than

the appellant have to be adjusted against unreserved

category and fill up next 70% of the vacancies with

local candidates by following the Presidential Order.

9. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent

had further contended that admittedly, in the instant

case, the appellant is a member belongs to Zone-V and

she has to be considered only in Zone-VI against SC

(W) roster point and the appellant could not have been

accommodated against 30% of vacancies made for

unreserved candidates. The appellant is not coming

within the meritorious category to be considered under

unreserved as there were three more candidates having

secured more merit than the appellant and when the

unreserved posts are to be filled up by both local and

non-local candidates, the appellant could not have

been appointed in Zone-VI under unreserved category.

Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeals and

the same are liable to be dismissed.

10. This Court having considered the rival

submissions made by the parties is of the considered

view that the learned Single Judge has given a specific

finding that there were three more meritorious

candidates than the appellant (in W.A.No.58 of 2021)

in Zone-VI and when those three meritorious

candidates were available, they ought to have been

adjusted against the 30% meant for unreserved

category and there was no fourth vacancy to be filled

up with unreserved category i.e. forming part of 30%

for unreserved category. When there is no such post

to be filled up under unreserved category beyond three,

the TREI-RB could not have appointed the appellant

(in W.A.No.58 of 2021) as a Junior Lecturer in Zoology

in Zone-VI ignoring the legitimate claim of the 2nd

respondent/Writ Petitioner as admittedly the 2nd

respondent/Writ Petitioner belongs to Zone-VI and she

has to be adjusted in the 70% quota as prescribed by

the Presidential Order and the learned Single Judge

has rightly set aside the appointment of the appellant.

However, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the

appellant to submit an application to the TREI-RB to

consider her appointment as a Junior Lecturer in any

existing vacancy and it is for TREI-RB to consider the

case of the appellant and pass appropriate orders in

any existing vacancy. The learned Single Judge has

dealt with the case very elaborately and given cogent

reasons while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the 2nd

respondent/Writ Petitioner in the following manner:

"22. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.2 contended that there are unfilled vacancies and she can be continued in service even after accommodating the petitioner. No opinion can be expressed on this plea. As per the settled principle of law on recruitment and operation of merit list, it is clear that merit list has to be drawn to the extent of vacancies notified, keeping in mind principle of reservation as per social reservation and as per the Presidential Order. Once merit list is exhausted and all the candidates included in the merit list are appointed, the recruitment process comes to end. If a person on appointment does not join the post or joins, but relinquishes the post, they become resultant vacancies and required to be notified whenever next

recruitment takes place. A next meritorious candidate can stake claim against notified vacancies, if no appointment order was issued/provisional selection and appointment is cancelled/ candidate appointed found to be ineligible to fill a particular slot (as in this case). It is for the 1st respondent to verify and take appropriate action.

23. However, liberty is granted to 2nd respondent to file an application before the 1st respondent to consider her appointment as Junior Lecturer (Zoology) in any existing vacancy and it is for the 1st respondent to consider such request. It is made clear that the decision in this case is confined to validity of appointment of 2nd respondent against vacancy reserved for SC (Women) in Zone-VI though she is not a local candidate of Zone-VI.

24. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The selection and appointment of the 2nd respondent as Junior Lecturer in Zoology in Zone-VI is set aside. The 1st Respondent is directed to redraw the merit list for the post of Junior Lecturer [Zoology] in Zone-VI comprising local candidates of Zone-VI only, to the vacancies earmarked to be filled up by local candidates of Zone-VI and if the petitioner is found to be the next meritorious candidate, to appoint her against the said post. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. "

11. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere

with the well reasoned order of the learned Single

Judge. Both the Writ Appeals fail and accordingly they

are dismissed. However, it is once again reiterated

that as it was held by the learned Single Judge, it is

always open for the appellant in W.A.No.58 of 2021 to

submit representation to the TREI-RB to consider her

case against any of the unfilled vacancies and upon

such representation being made, the TREI-RB shall

consider the same and pass appropriate orders in

accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be