P.Anjanyulu, Registration ... vs The State Of Telangana,
2023 Latest Caselaw 4077 Tel

            HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

                              ********

                WRIT PETITION NO.29760 OF 2017


Between :

P.Anjaneyulu, s/o. Laxmaiah,
Aged about 37 years, working as H.G. 93,
Rural P.S. nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
                                                            ...Petitioner
               and

The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
                                                         .... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED                :       17.11.2023


     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


1.   Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers :       No
      may be allowed to see the Judgments ?

2.   Whether the copies of judgment may be :       Yes
     marked to Law Reporters/Journals

3.   Whether Their Lordship wish to            :   No
     see the fair copy of the Judgment ?
                                            2




       *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                   +WRIT PETITION NO.29760 OF 2017


%17.11.2023

Between:

# P.Anjaneyulu, s/o. Laxmaiah,
Aged about 37 years, working as H.G. 93,
Rural P.S. nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
                                                                     ...Petitioner
                  and

$ The State of Telangana,
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
                                                                 .... Respondents



!Counsel for the Petitioner                    : Sri Y.Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents                    : Govt.Pleader for Home for
                                                 respondent no.1;
                                                 Govt.Pleader for Services-I for
                                                 respondent no.2



<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

AIR 2016 SC 1098; MANU/BH/0901/2019; (2020) 3 SCC 108
                                        3



       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY


                      WRIT PETITION NO.29760 OF 2017

ORDER:

The petitioner filed the present writ petition praying to grant

the following relief:

"... to declare the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner herein for the post of SCT (Police Constable (TSSP) or other category under the local category in the Police Department of Nalgonda district, pursuant to the notification vide Rc.No.151/Rect./Admn.1/2015 and selecting the candidates who got lesser marks than the petitioner herein in the said category is highly illegal, arbitrary and unjustified, with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner herein for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police constable (TSSP) or other category under the local category in the Police Department of Nalgonda district, pursuant to the notification vide Rc.No.151/Rect./Admn.1/2015 as they got higher marks than the selected candidates.... "

2. The brief facts leading to filing the present writ petition are as

under:

2.1. The 2nd respondent-Board had issued notification vide

Rc.No.151/Rect./Admn.1/2015, dated 31.12.2015, inviting

applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the

following posts.

Sl.    Post code                         Name of the post                            No.     of
No.    No.                                                                           vacancies

1      21          Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) (Men &   1810
                   Women) in Police Department

2      22          Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (AR) (Men &      2760
                   Women) in Police Department

3      23          Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (SAR CPL)        56
                   (Men) in Police Department

4      24          Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) (Men)     4065
                   in Police Department

5      25          Constable (Men) in Special Protection Force (SPF) Department      174


6      26          Firemen in Telangana State Disaster Response & Fire Services      416
                   Department

2.2. As per Clause-6(ii) of the notification, 5% reservation was

provided to the Home Guards (HG) under Special Representation

(Reservation).

2.3. Pursuant to the notification vide Rc.No.151/Rect./

Admn.1/2015, dated 31.12.2015, petitioner applied for the posts of

Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) (Men &

Women) in the Police Department (Post Code No.21) and Stipendiary

Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Post Code No.22), TSSP Code

No.24 in Nalgonda District as the petitioner is local to said district.

Petitioner belongs to BC-A community and working as Home Guard

since several years. Therefore, petitioner claimed special category

under Home Guard quota.

2.4. The petitioner has passed preliminary written test, physical

measurement test and physical efficient test (PET) and secured 73

marks, 85 marks and 80 marks in Post Code no.21 (civil), Post Code

No.22 (AR) and Post Code No.24, respectively. The respondents have

fixed the cut-off mark as 79.25 in Nalgonda post the post of 12th

Bn.TSSP (Post Code Nos.23, 24, 25) for the BC-A category. Petitioner

contended that respondents have not followed the rule of reservation

applicable to the Home Guard quota. Further, they have appointed

the candidates for the post of TSSP (Post code No.24) under local

quota, who got lesser marks than the petitioner. Petitioner studied in

Nalgonda district and relevant certificate to show that the petitioner

is a local of Nalgonda district was enclosed, but the respondents have

treated him as non-local. Though petitioner submitted representation

to the respondents ventilating his grievances, they did not consider

the same.

3. Respondent No.2 filed counter stating that the Chairman,

TSLPRB had issued notification vide Rc.No.151/Rect/Admn.1/2015,

dated 31.12.2015 inviting applications from the eligible candidates

for filling up of various posts. In response to the said notification,

petitioner participated in the recruitment process vide Registration

No.455879 and secured 73 marks for the post of SCT PC (Civil)/

Firemen, 85 marks for the post of SCT PC (AR) and 80 marks for the

post of SCT PC (SAR/TSSP/SPF). Petitioner belongs to BC-A

community and claimed to be Home Guard as special category.

Petitioner submitted residence certificate dated 26.06.2016 issued by

the Tahsildar, Nalgonda Mandal, during the recruitment process, in

support of his claim that he is a local candidate, wherein it was

mentioned that petitioner is residing in Nalgonda district since last

seven years. In the online application, he did not mention school

details of 4th class to 10th class and furnished residence detail. He

appeared SCC as a private candidate in March, 2022. The 2nd

respondent referred to Presidential Order, as per which, the definition

of local candidate is as follows:-

"(i) "Local candidate" means a candidate for direct recruitment to any post in relation to that local area where he/she has studied in Educational Institution(s) for not less than four consecutive academic years prior to and including the year in which he/she appeared for SSC or its equivalent examination. If however, he/she has not studied in any educational institution during the above four years period, it is enough if he/she has resided in that area which is claimed as his/her local area during the above said period.

(ii) .....

(iii) .....

(iv) ....."

3.1. That since petitioner did not submit residence certificate for

four years period prior to 2002 i.e., the year in which he appeared

SCC, he was treated as non-local. The petitioner secured less marks

than the cut-off marks for all the notified posts as non-local

candidate. That no candidate with lesser marks than the petitioner

was selected either under 20% unreserved posts or under open

competition. It is further contended that petitioner did not mention

school details in the Online application and has only mentioned the

residence details. The 2nd respondent referred to notification dated

31.12.2015 by the Board, wherein it is mentioned that the Telangana

State Level Police (TSLPRB) is not responsible for any discrepancy in

the application particulars while submitting the form through online.

3.2. The claim of the candidates with regard to the age, date of

birth, educational qualifications, community etc., are accepted only

provisionally on the information furnished by them in their

application forms and certificates produced subject to verification and

satisfaction of the Board.

3.3. The provisional selection list of SCT PCs (Civil/etc.) was issued

on 16.02.2017 and after issuance of provisional selection list and

filling up all the notified posts, petitioner submitted representation

dated 21.02.2017 to the Chairman, Telangans State Level Police

Recruitment Board duly enclosing copy of residence certificate issued

on 06.02.2017 by the Tahsildar, Nalgonda Mandal for 20 years

residence period. Petitioner has also preferred challenge

representation dated 27.02.2017 and the same examined, considered

and rejected vide Memo, dated 21.04.2017 by the authority.

3.4. It is further stated that in a time bound process of recruitment,

if petitions based on vague/equivocal/debatable matters are litigated

during/after the process of recruitment, it virtually becomes

impossible to decisively come to a conclusion on the merit list as the

same has potential to complicate and jeopardize the entire selection

process. In the present case, the entire process has been completed

and if litigation is allowed on issues settled transparently by laid

down procedure, then the whole process gets unsettled and it

becomes virtually impossible to complete the recruitment.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri Y.Prakash for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent no.1 and

learned counsel Government Pleader Sri M.V.Rama Rao for Services-I

for the respondent no.2.

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that petitioner was appointed as Home Guard as local

candidate and has been working in the Department for several years.

However, petitioner was not considered as local candidate, thereby

depriving his right to selection to SCT Police Constable. He further

contended that petitioner studied in a private schools and completed

10th class as a private candidate, therefore, he did not have school

certificates and thus, he could not produce the same along with the

application. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that

petitioner is a local candidate in terms of the Presidential Order and

has referred to definition of local candidate as mentioned in clause (i)

of Presidential Order as per which, "if he/she has not studied in any

educational institution during the above four years period, it is

enough if he/she has resided in that area, which is claimed as

his/her local area during the said period."

6. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, since the

petitioner studied in a private school, he did not have educational

certificates to show that he studied in any educational institution.

However, he is claiming local candidate on the ground that he is

residing in local area, for which he produced residential certificate

issued by the Tahsildar dated 06.02.2017, in which it was stated that

he is residing in local area for the past 20 years. He further

contended that despite the same, the respondents did not consider

the case of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that as the

certificate were not available, he could not enclose the same along

with the application, however, he could obtain residential certificate

subsequently and therefore, he submitted representation to the 2nd

respondent on 21.02.2017 along with residential certificate issued on

06.02.2017 issued by the Tahsildar, Nalgonda Mandal. But, the

respondents did not consider the representation as well as residential

certificate issued by the Tahsildar and thereby, deprived the

petitioner from appointment for the post of SCT Police Constable

pursuant to the notification dated 31.12.2015 issued by the 2nd

respondent.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner had relied upon the following

decisions:

(i) Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and others 1; and

(ii) Shashi Bhushan Yadav vs. The State of Bihar and others 2

9. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for respondents

submitted that petitioner was supposed to submit the requisite

certificates in proof of claim of local candidate at the time of

verification of certificates, which took place on 29.07.2016, which

admittedly petitioner did not submit. Further, the petitioner did not

provide details of his educational qualifications as well as residence

in the application submitted by him pursuant to the notification

dated 31.12.2005. Since petitioner failed to submit the documents in

proof of claim of local candidate either at the time of submitting

application or on the date of verification of certificates, petitioner was

treated as non-local candidate. The cut-off marks for the non-local

candidate for the post code Nos.21, 22, and 24 are 134, 110.50 and

98.50 respectively, whereas, the petitioner had secured marks 73, 85

AIR 2016 SC 1098

MANU/BH/0901/2019

and 80 respectively, therefore, petitioner was not considered for the

above posts.

10. The learned Government Pleader for respondents had relied

upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnataka State Seeds

Development Corporation Limited and another vs. H.L.Kaveri

and others 3.

Consideration:

11. From the facts and material placed on record, it can be culled

out that petitioner did not mention the educational details in the

application submitted by him. It is also not in dispute that petitioner

did not have any certificate/document evidencing his study in local

area. The provisional selection list of SCT PC (Civil/etc) was issued on

16.02.2017. Further, the petitioner submitted residence certificate

much after the date of verification of documents and even the

representation dated 21.02.2017 was submitted after issuance of

provisional selection list as well as filling up all the notified posts.

12. It is relevant to refer to the contentions of the respondents that

in a time bound process of recruitment, if petitions based on vague/

equivocal/ debatable matters are litigated during/after the process of

recruitment, it virtually becomes impossible to decisively come to a

conclusion on the merit list as the same has potential to complicate

(2020) 3 SCC 108

and jeopardize the entire selection process which has already been

completed by the respondents Board. That if litigation is allowed on

issues settled transparently by laid down procedure, then the whole

process gets unsettled and it becomes virtually impossible to

complete the recruitment.

13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner

approached the 2nd respondent at a belated stage after completion of

entire selection process as well as issuance of provisional selection

list. Admittedly, the entire process has been completed and the

successful candidates have been appointed long back. Therefore, at

this stage, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and

further, the selected candidates cannot now be unsettled/disturbed

after appointment at this belated stage.

14. In Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) referred to by the learned

counsel for petitioner, the issue involved is whether the candidate

who appears in an examination under the OBC category and

submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the

advertisement is eligible to the post under the OBC category or not.

Whereas, in the present case, non-submission of requisite documents

to prove that petitioner is a local candidate for selection. In the

present case, petitioner did not produce the requisite documents

either along with the application or at the time of verification of

certificates and submitted the documents only after issuance of

provisional select list. Thus, the facts of the above case are different

and same has no application.

15. In Shashi Bhushan Yadav (supra), the requisite certificate was

submitted much prior to the conclusion of selection, whereas, in the

present case, admittedly the residence certificate was submitted after

completion of selection process and also after the filling up of all the

posts. Therefore, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for

petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case and do

not come to the aid of the petitioner.

16. On the contrary, the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.L.Kaveri (supra)

had held that 'in the given circumstances, we do not find any error

being committed by the Corporation in its decision-making process

while rejecting the application of the first respondent for non-

fulfillment of the necessary experience certificate which was to be

enclosed along with the application as required in terms of the

advertisement dated 11.11.2013.

17. The facts of the above case and the present case are similar

and applicable to the present case. Admittedly, petitioner failed to

produce required documents at appropriate time for treating the

petitioner as local candidate and therefore, the respondent no.2

treated the petitioner as non-local candidate. Therefore, this Court do

not find any irregularity on the part of the 2nd respondent in treating

the petitioner as non-local candidate.

Conclusion:

18. In considered opinion of this Court, there are no merits in the

writ petition and further, there is delay, latches on the part of

petitioner and thus, the Writ Petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

19. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.

__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 17.11.2023 kkm

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION NO.29760 OF 2017

Date: 17.11.2023

kkm