Shaik Jahangeer Ali vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 642 Tel

           HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL

                  WRIT PETITION No.7453 of 2020

ORDER:

1 This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking to direct the respondent authorities

to consider the case of the petitioner and give posting orders as

Junior Assistant in lieu of PC (AR) as he is having qualifications

for appointment as such.

2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he

belongs to B.C (B) Dudekula caste and was selected for the post of

police constable in the year 2004. Since he has not received any

proceedings he approached the authorities who said that his caste

certificate, which was issued by the 5th respondent herein dated

25.10.2001, was referred to the revenue authorities to enquire

about its genuineness and was informed that on receipt of

confirmation from the revenue authorities the proceedings will be

issued. He approached the revenue authorities and requested to

furnish genuineness certificate as sought by the Superintendent of

Police, Khammam, but they said that no such correspondence is

received from the office of the Superintendent of Police,

Khammam. Thereafter, he made several representations to the

revenue authorities, but in vain.

3 It is further submitted that the petitioner met with accident

on 11.06.2019. Thereafter, he made a representation to the

Tahsildar for issuance of fresh caste certificate. The authorities

gave caste certificate certifying that he belongs to B.C (B)

Dudekula caste, vide CNDO 22018270800 dated 20.01.2020.

4 It is further submitted that after obtaining fresh caste

certificate from the 5th respondent, the petitioner made

representation to the 3rd respondent explaining his grievance and

requested to give him posting orders as Junior Assistant which is

equivalent to the post of PC (AR) as he met with accident. Since no

action is forth coming favourably, the present writ petition is filed.

5 Basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit, the

learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents

submitted that the final selection which the petitioner claims

pertains to 16 years back and he did not contact the office of the

3rd respondent about his final selection and the record is also not

available. Representing after more than one and half decade is not

considerable issue. The petitioner never approached the office in

between and suddenly filed his fresh caste certificate issued by the

Tahsildar dated 20.01.2020. Since the issue is of about 16 years

back no action can be taken at this point of time.

6 He further submitted that the petitioner claims that he was

provisionally selected as SCT PC pertains to the notification issued

in 2001 by the Police Recruitment Board and mere provisional

selection as SCT PC does not give any right to the petitioner to

claim appointment on regular basis that too in a different post

after more than 20 years and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7 In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition the 3rd

respondent sought information from the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Khammam to ascertain whether the caste certificate

submitted by the petitioner is genuine or not pursuant to which,

the 5th respondent herein has submitted a report to the Revenue

Divisional Officer stating that the caste certificate submitted by

the petitioner is genuine.

8 In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the

petitioner relied on the following decisions:

V.Mohan Babu Vs. Teachers Recruitment Board, Rep. by

its Chairman, College Road, Chennai1, Tukaram Kana Joshi

Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation2,

1 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 489 2 (2013) 1 SCC 353

Purushottam Vs. Chairman MSEB and another3, Hotel

Seaking and Others Vs. Kerala Financial Corporation4, and

Dinesh Kumar Kashyap Vs. South East Central Railway5.

9 There is no much dispute about the caste status of the writ

petitioner. The petitioner claims that he was provisionally selected

for the post of PC (AR) in the selections took place in 2001 by the

Police Recruitment Board. The petitioner claims to have made

representations to the revenue officials apart from the

Superintendent of Police, Khammam repeatedly for verification of

his caste certificate and issuance of proceedings regarding

appointment. But the petitioner chose to file representations

before a different forum. There is a State level Police Recruitment

Board instituted to lookafter the entire recruitment process.

Therefore, the petitioner ought to have made representations to

the appropriate body at appropriate time, instead of representing

before the revenue officials and the 3rd respondent, who are not

the relevant parties to agitate his cause as the recruitment process

of the writ petitioner was not complete in terms of the recruitment

notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Level Police

Recruitment Board. Moreover, the representations made by the

petitioner do not bear any acknowledgement in order to prove his

3 (1999) 6 SCC 49 4 (1999) 6 SCC 51 5 (2019) 12 SCC 798

legitimacy. The 3rd respondent has no power to consider the case

of the petitioner. Mere filing of representations before an authority

which is not concerned with the recruitment process does not

yield any result without pursuing them. The petitioner, having

slept over the issue for more than one and half decade, cannot

come to the Court pleading innocence. It is the duty of the

petitioner to prove his case before the appropriate body within a

reasonable time. Further, the medical certificate produced by the

petitioner can also not be relied upon since even as per his own

case he was bed ridden for one week. That too the said certificate

was issued by a private hospital. So it cannot be looked into.

Hence, mere provisional selection as SCT PC does not give any

right to the petitioner to claim appointment on regular basis that

too in a different post after more than 20 years. The facts of the

judgments, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are

different to the facts of the case on hand and hence they have no

application to the case of the petitioner.

10 In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to

entertain the writ petition and it is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches.

11 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to

costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition

shall also stand dismissed.

------------------------------

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

Date: 08-02-2023.

Kvsn