Telangana High Court

Ganduri Victor Prem Sagar vs The Managing Director, on 19 October, 2023

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 27633 OF 2011

ORDER:

Petitioner is before this Court complaining that the

2nd respondent did not follow the procedure for appointment to

the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer (Mechanical), V Zone under

BC-C category covered under the notification dated 03.01.2011

of the 1st respondent notifying the appointment of Trainee Sub-

Engineer for Engineering Diploma Holders in Electrical,

Mechanical, Electronics & Civil for the total number of post 350

as illegal and unjust.

2. Petitioner's case is that he worked with Lloyd

Projects Pvt. Limited which is the Sub-contractor with K.T.P.S.,

V Phase, Paloncha, Khammam District from 01.07.1996 to

31.07.1996 and he is a diploma holder in Mechanical

Engineering. Pursuant to the impugned notification, he applied

for the post of Trainee Sub-Engineer (Mechanical) in V-Zone

under BC-C category and secured 51.28% in the written

examination and stood topper in V-Zone. However, without

following the procedure, Respondents 1 and 2 appointed the 3rd

respondent who secured 46.53% from Zone V and the 4th

respondent who belongs to Krishna District which fell under

Zone-II, hence, he is a non-local candidate in the composite

Andhra Pradesh.

3. This Court while issuing notice before admission

granted interim direction on 30.09.2011 which reads as under:

" Status quo obtaining as on today as regards filling up of the vacancies of Trainee Sub-Engineers (Mechanical Branch) reserved for BC-C category in Zone-V shall be maintained until further orders".

The said order is still subsisting.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by Respondents 1 and

2, selection procedure for the post of Trainee Sub-Engineers was

prescribed, according to which written test would be conducted

for maximum 100 marks and marks secured in the said test

would be restricted to 50 and weightage of 30 was meant for

overall marks obtained in the qualifying diploma examination

(marks secured in Diploma X 30 / total marks in diploma).

Similarly weightage up to 10 marks was meant for passing the

qualifying examination of diploma up to the date of notification

@ 2 marks for each completed year of passing and further

service weightage of ten marks for candidates who worked as

contract labour for more than six months and five marks for

those who worked for less than six months in the power

generating stations under the respondent Corporation.

Thereafter, petitioner attended the written examination on

27.02.2011 and after verifying the testimonials, it was found

that petitioner secured 19 marks in the written test, 10

weightage marks against year of passing diploma and 17.14

weightage marks against marks secured in diploma. The

petitioner's claim that he is entitled for weightage marks for

experience at 5 as a contractual employee turned out to be

false. Candidates claiming experience in GENCO have to

submit gate pass / annual slip of EPF i.e. minimum one gate

pass and the gate pass produced for the period from 01.07.1996

to 31.07.1996 is reported to be fabricated and the security at

KTPS, V Stage, Paloncha denied issuing any such gate pass to

petitioner. Thus, petitioner secured a total of only 46.14 marks,

whereas the 3rd respondent secured a total of 46.53 (written test

18.5 + weightage of 6 marks in respect of year of passing

diploma + 22.03 marks in diploma) and got selected under local

category and the 4th respondent secured a total of 56 marks

(written test 24.50 + weightage of 10 marks in respect of year of

passing the diploma + weightage marks of 21.50 in diploma)

and got selected under non-local category. It is stated that

pursuant to the interim order dated 30.09.2011, the

appointment order of the 3rd respondent was kept in abeyance.

Further, letter dated 03.07.2012 was also issued considering his

representation dated NIL stating that petitioner is not entitled

for weightage marks for experience as he submitted xerox copy

of gate pass and not put-forth any relevant proof / evidence and

the validity of experience etc. against his claim. Again another

letter dated 30.12.20011 was issued stating that reply should

reach on or before 13.01.2012, but the same was not complied

with by the petitioner. It is, ultimately, stated that claim of

petitioner for award of weightage marks was rightly rejected and

Writ Petition is thus misconceived and is liable to be dismissed

as devoid of merits.

5. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit wherein

he has clearly stated that he was considered for appointment by

the respondent- corporation after verification of his

testimonials.

6. Petitioner filed the reply-affidavit stating that the

gate pass was issued by the Security Officer and not only the

signature of Security Officer but also that of Assistant Executive

Engineer is there. It is his grievance that though he was

selected in 2011, after lapse of seven years, still, he is waiting

for employment. Several times, he approached the officials

under the RTI Act, 2005 for getting certain information, but he

was not provided with any information.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ponnam

Ashok Goud. He contends that selection process has to be

prescribed in advance. Rules of game cannot be changed

afterwards and minimum qualifying marks for interview

prescribed after the interviews were over, is not permissible. In

support of the same, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in K.Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1

7. Heard Ms V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel

for GENCO.

8. The impugned notification which was shown at

pages 10 to 19 of the writ papers clearly prescribes the subject

note which reads as under:

" Note: Candidates claiming experience in APGENCO have to submit gate pass / annual account slip of EPF i.e. minimum one gate pass for the candidates who are claiming as contract labour to the proof of working for less than 6 months or PF membership and minimum of seven gate passes or annual accounts slip of EPF for the candidates claiming who have worked as contract labour for more than 6 months."

At the time of verifying the testimonials of petitioner, it was

found that gate pass for the period from 01.07.1996 to

31.07.1996 which was referred to the station-wise committee

(2008) 3 SCC 512

constituted vide G.O.O.No. 79/CGM(Adm)2011, dated

31.05.2011 to find out the genuinty of claim, was reported as

'the gate pass enclosed not issued by security and it is

fabricated', hence, his claim for experience for weightage was

not considered and awarded '0' marks, thus total marks which

were awarded prior to verifying the documents was reduced

from 51.28 to 46.14. Hence, the judgment relied on by the

petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case.