Telangana High Court
Chikkonda Yadagiri vs The State Of Telangana on 28 August, 2024
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU
RAJESHWAR RAO
+ WRIT PETITION Nos.19341, 29104, 29529, 31666, 31728, 32014,
32017 OF 2023; 5509, 10031, 13928, 16229, 16846, 16946, 17027,
17910, 18647, 20986 AND 22557 OF 2024
% 28-08-2024
#Sri Chimata Karunakar and others. ...Petitioners
vs.
$The State of Telangana and others. ... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners:
1. Sri G. Vidyasagar, Senior Counsel
representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram,
counsel for petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and
32017 of 2023.
2. Ms. Kalpana Perumandla, counsel for
petitioners in W.P.Nos.31728 and 31666 of
2023 and 16846, 16946, 18647, 20986 and
22557 of 2024.
^Counsel for Respondents:
1. Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, Advocate
General and Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special
Government Pleader assisting Advocate
General for the State.
2. Sri Goda Siva, Senior Counsel
representing Ms. G. Ramalakshmi, counsel
for respondent Nos.9 to 59 in W.P.No.32017
of 2023.
3. Sri M.V. Rama Rao, Standing Counsel for
TSLPRB.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2020) 20 SCC 209
2. (2022) 8 SCC 713
3. (2017) 4 SCC 357
4. W.P.No.40714 of 2022 and batch, dated 13.12.2023.
5. (1990) 3 SCC 157
6. 1991 Supp (2) SCC 367
7. (1992) 4 SCC 711
8. (2022) 11 SCC 392
9.1953 AIR 274
10. 1987 AIR 1023
11. (1977) 2 SCC 256
2
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION Nos.19341, 29104, 29529, 31666, 31728, 32014,
32017 OF 2023; 5509, 10031, 13928, 16229, 16846, 16946, 17027,
17910, 18647, 20986 AND 22557 OF 2024
(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul)
Between:
Sri Chimata Karunakar and others.
...Petitioners
vs.
The State of Telangana and others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON:28.08.2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? :
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? :
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? :
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
3
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos.19341, 29104, 29529, 31666, 31728,
32014, 32017 OF 2023; 5509, 10031, 13928, 16229, 16846,
16946, 17027, 17910, 18647, 20986 AND 22557 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER:
(Per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy Paul)
In this batch of Writ Petitions, the petitioners have
questioned the legality, validity, propriety and constitutionality of
G.O.Ms.No.46, General Administration (SPF.II) Department,
dated 04.04.2022, and Note-1 below para 2B and Table 6 of
Notification dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) issued by
respondent No.3 in relation to recruitment of Police Constable
(TSSP) (Post Code No.24).
Facts:
2. Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board,
respondent No.3 herein, issued the recruitment notification dated
25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) inviting candidature for different
posts including the post of Constable. The petitioners and other
candidates submitted their candidature for the post of Constable.
The total number of vacancies for Cadre Post Code No.24
(Constable) are 5010 and the relevant portion of notification
reads thus:
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
2B. DISTRIBUTION OF VACANCIES FOR CONTIGUOUS DISTRICT
CADRE POST CODE No.24
Post Code
Sl.No. Name of the Unit No.24 Total
LR DR
1 Contiguous District Cadre - I 47 2442 2489
2 Contiguous District Cadre - II 35 2486 2521
Total 82 4928 5010
Note: 1. 95% of the vacancies in the above Contiguous District cadre
shall be reserved in favour of and allocated among the local
Candidates in relation to each of the local areas in respect of such
cadres as per the ratio communicated by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.46, General Administration (SPF.II) Department, dated
04.04.2022.
2. After selection, the Appointing Authority may appoint them
in any Buttalion in the concerned Contiguous District cadre.
3. Since a reference is made to G.O.Ms.No.46, dated
04.04.2022, the petitioners have assailed the said G.O., also in
these Writ Petitions in addition to challenge to Note-1 and
Table 6.
4. The case of the petitioners is that the post of Constable is
divided into two cadres namely (i) Contiguous District Cadre-I
and (ii) Contiguous District Cadre-II. The note No.1 appended
below para 2B aforesaid specifies that 95% of vacancies in the
above Contiguous District Cadres are reserved as per the ratio
communicated by G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022. Note-2
provides that after selection, the Appointing Authority may
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
appoint them in any Battalion in the concerned Contiguous
District Cadre. Rule 11 of the rules governing the post specifies
that Post Code No.24 and Post Code Nos.21, 22 and 23 are made
under the Telangana Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee)
Rules, 1999 (Rules of 1999) as published in G.O.Ms.No.14,
dated 08.04.2022.
5. Clause 19E of notification (Annexure P-2) provides that the
final selection shall be made strictly in consonance with
G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 04.08.2021, whereas Clause 20 talks
about reservation of 'local candidates' in each Contiguous
District Cadre for Post Code No.24. The candidates were
required to go through physical efficiency test and physical
measurement test. The candidates who passed those tests were
subjected to final written examination held on 30.04.2023.
6. W.P.No.19341 of 2023 was filed on 21.07.2023 challenging
G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, and this Court by order dated
21.07.2023, recorded the statement of learned Special
Government Pleader that till the counter affidavits are filed in the
Writ Petition, the final result would not be announced. Learned
counsel for the petitioners stated that without obtaining any
permission in the above subjudice matter, respondent No.3
displayed cut-off marks of the candidates i.e., Police Constable
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
unit-wise in each Contiguous Districts on 04.10.2023. The
Division Bench of this Court, on 19.10.2023, deprecated the
conduct of the respondents in declaring the result during the
pendency of the Writ Petition and directed them not to fill up 20
posts of Police Constables.
7. The facts are taken from W.P.No.32014 of 2023 which was
filed on 18.11.2023. The selected candidates were directed to
undergo training and in that order, it was specifically mentioned
that their training/selection shall remain subject to outcome of
the Writ Petitions/SLPs pending in the Courts.
Contentions of the petitioners:
8. Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and 32017 of 2023 placed reliance
on various statutory provisions and G.O.Ms., to buttress their
submissions. G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 31.12.2015, was referred to
show that the selection procedure comprises of preliminary
written test, physical efficiency test, physical measurement test
and final written test. G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022, was
relied upon to submit that the final selection must be strictly on
relative merit of the candidates based on their aggregate score of
final written examination, physical efficiency test, physical
measurement test and weightage marks in Contiguous District
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Cadre, as organized under Telangana Public Employment
(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order, 2018 (Order of 2018). This Order of 2018
(G.O.Ms.No.124) was readout with G.O.Ms.No.172, dated
04.08.2021.
9. G.O.Ms.No.124, dated 30.08.2018, was issued in
supersession of the previous Presidential Order, 1975.
G.O.Ms.No.128, dated 30.06.2021, was issued by the State
publishing the Presidential Order, 2018, as amended vide
G.S.R.279(E), dated 16.04.2021. Heavy reliance is placed on the
Order of 2018, dated 04.08.2021, organizing the local cadres in
Telangana State Special Battalions into Contiguous District
Cadre-I comprising of 17 Police Units (11 Revenue Districts and 6
Police Commissionerates) and Contiguous District Cadre-II
comprising of 12 Police Units (9 Revenue Districts and 3 Police
Commissionerates). The relevant portion reads as under:
A-Posts Organized into (Contiguous) District Cadre
Sl.No. Post Category Contiguous District Contiguous District
Cadre - I Cadre - II
1) Bhupalapalli - 1) Suryapet
Jayashankar
2) Asifabad - 2) Nalgonda
Komarambheem
3) Ramagundam 3) Rachakonda Police
Commissionarate Commissionarate.
4) Mulugu 4) Hyderabad Police
Commissionarate
5) Adilabad 5) Cyberabad Police
Police Constable Commissionarate
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
1. (TSSP) 6) Nirmal 6) Sangareddy
7) Nizamabad Police 7) Vikarabad
Commissionarate
8) Jagtial 8) Mahaboobnagar
9) Karimnagar Police 9) Narayanpet
Commissionarate
10) Siddipet Police 10) Wanaparthy
Commissionarate
11) Sircilla - Rajanna 11) Gadwal - Jogulamba
and
12) Kamareddy 12) Nagarkurnool
13) Medak
14) Kothagudem -
Bhadradri
15) Khammam Police
Commissionarate
16) Mahabubad and
17) Warangal Police
Commissionarate
10. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.46 was issued by the State on
04.04.2022 in relation to each local area basing on the
population of such local areas. Sl.No.4 of Annexure-I of
G.O.Ms.No.46 describes Home Department and TSSP Battalion.
Table 6 in Annexure-II specifies local areas within Contiguous
District contrary to the Presidential Order, 2018.
11. The bone of contention of learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners is that the respondents are treating each Police Unit
as a separate unit, whereas each Contiguous District Cadre must
be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of 'local area'. To
bolster this submission, reliance is placed on the definitions of
'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local candidate' mentioned in the
Order of 2018. Sub-para (6) of Para (3) of Order of 2018 was
relied upon to submit that the State Government is empowered to
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
organize the posts belonging to any of the categories in any of the
Department in two or more Contiguous Districts (either full or
part) or Zones, as the case may be, into a single cadre. Para (5)
which describes 'local cadre' and recruitment or appointment of
persons, Para (6) which defines 'local areas' and Para (7) which
talks about 'local candidate' are highlighted to buttress the
submission that once a Contiguous District Cadre is formed, it
shall be treated to be a separate unit for the purpose of
recruitment.
12. Para 8 of Order of 2018 shows that 95% of the posts to be
filled up by direct recruitment must be reserved in favour of 'local
candidates' in relation to the 'local area' in respect of such cadre.
Sub-para (4) of Para 8 is referred to point out that 95% of posts
to be filled up by direct recruitment at any time in such cadre
must be reserved in favour of and allocated amongst the 'local
candidates' in relation to each of 'local areas' in respect of such
cadre in the ratio as prescribed by the State Government basing
on the population of such local areas. G.O.Ms.172, dated
04.08.2021, provides that the extent of preference in favour of
local candidates in the matter of direct recruitment shall be as
laid down in the Order of 2018. It was further contended that
cadre strength of respective local cadres as per sanction of posts
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
accorded by Finance Department shall be taken and wherever
necessary service rules may be amended.
13. The recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022 is relied
upon to show that the table mentioned in Para 2B shows that the
Contiguous District Cadres-I and II were treated as two separate
and independent cadres and they have no relation with any
Police Unit, whereas in relation to other posts, such as Cadre
Post Code Nos.21 and 22, the name of unit is relatable with the
Police Unit. Much emphasis is laid on the tables mentioned in
Paras 2A, 2B and 2D of the recruitment notification. The said
notification gives an impression to the candidates that so far
Cadre Post Code Nos.21, 22 and 26 are concerned, the relevant
unit is either 'Police Unit' or it is the unit based on the District or
Police Commissionerate, whereas post of Constable (Code No.24)
makes it clear that the Contiguous District Cadres-I and II were
treated as two different units.
14. Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.No.46 is a table which contains a
column namely 'local area ratio'. Against the post of Police
Constable, it is mentioned that local area ratio would be as
prescribed in Table 6 in Annexure-III. Table 6 reads thus:
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Contiguous District Cadre I
S.No. Local Area Ratio
3. Ramagundam Police 10
Commissionerate
7. Nizamabad Police 9
Commissionerate
9. Karimnagar Police 6
Commissionerate
10. Siddipet Police Commissionerate 6
15. Khammam Police 8
Commissionerate
17. Warangal Police Commissionerate 14
Contiguous Police District Cadre II
S.No. Local Area Ratio
3. Rachakonda Police 16
Commissionerate
4. Hyderabad Police 21
Commissionerate
5. Cyberabad Police 16
Commissionerate
15. Learned Senior Counsel referred G.O.Ms.No.14, dated
08.04.2022, to highlight the method of selection. It is submitted
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
that the relative merit of the candidates was the sole criteria for
selection and posts are required to be filled up from the local
candidates of the Contiguous District Cadre. Thus, sheet anchor
of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that each
of the Contiguous District Cadre is an independent unit for
which persons are to be selected and selection cannot be on the
basis of Police Unit or unit based on Commissionerate.
16. The chart appended to G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 15.05.2023,
was referred to show that the Contiguous District Cadre-I was
divided into 17 units and for each unit and for each category,
different cut-off marks were given. Thus, a single unified
Contiguous District Cadre-I is sub-divided for the purpose of
selection and recruitment which runs contrary to the Order of
2018.
17. Anticipating the legal objection of the other side that after
having participated in the selection without any demur the
petitioners cannot challenge the recruitment notification and
G.O.Ms.No.46 dated 04.04.2022, learned counsel for the
petitioners raised two fold submissions. Firstly, it is submitted
that G.O.Ms.No.46 dated 04.04.2022 is not published in the
official gazette and it does not have any statutory force. This is
at best an executive instruction which runs contrary to the Order
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
of 2018. Thus, no estoppel can operate against statute.
Secondly, G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, and Note-1
appended to Para 2B of notification dated 25.04.2022 are vague
and create confusion. Thus, in view of judgments of Supreme
Court in Ranjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar 1 and Krishna
Rai v. Banaras Hindu University 2, neither delay nor estoppel
can be a hurdle for these petitioners. Moreso, when admittedly
W.P.No.19341 of 2023 was filed before the selection process was
over and results were declared.
18. The justification given in counter of respondent No.3
became subject matter of criticism by the petitioners by
submitting that it is pleaded in para 6 that recruitment in
question was conducted following the provisions of the
Presidential Order, 2018 and hence, Service Rules are not
relevant. Reliance is placed on para 15 of the counter of
respondent No.3 to submit that it is candidly admitted that Police
Constable (TSSP) was earlier a State Cadre Post, but now it is
reorganized into two such Contiguous District Cadres.
19. The eyebrows are also raised in the manner the Contiguous
District Cadres were divided based on Police Unit and on
(2020) 20 SCC 209
(2022) 8 SCC 713
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
percentage of population. The relevant charts which are
mentioned in the counter of respondent No.3 read as under:
Contiguous District Cadre I Contiguous District Cadre II
S.No. Police Unit % of Total S.No. Police Unit % of Total
Population Population
1. Adilabad 2.0 1. CP Cyberabad 8.1
2. Asifabad 1.5 2. Gadwal 1.7
3. Bhupalpally 1.2 3. CP Hyderabad 11.3
4. Jagtial 2.8 4. Mahabubnagar 2.6
5. CP 2.8 5. Nagarkurnool 2.6
Kamareddy 6. Nalgonda 4.6
6. CP 2.9 7. Narayanpet 1.6
Karimnagar 8. CP Rachakonda 8.1
7. CP Khammam 4.0
9. Sangareddy 4.4
8. Kothagudem 3.1 10. Suryapet 3.1
9. Mahabubabad 2.2 11. Vikarabad 2.6
10. Medak 2.2 12. Wanaparthy 1.7
11. Mulugu 0.7 Total of CDC II 52.4
12. Nirmal 2.0
13. CP 4.5
Nizamabad
14. CP 4.6
Ramagundam
15. Siddipet 2.9
16. Sircilla 1.6
17. CP Warangal 6.8
Total of CDC I 47.8
20. Para 17 of the counter of respondent No.3 contains an
averment that if recruitment in question is conducted within
each Contiguous District Cadre, without a judicious allotment of
the posts within the constituent Districts/Police Units, then it is
most likely that Candidates belonging to particular
Districts/Police Units that are more literate, developed or
urbanized will get selected to majority of the Posts notified within
the Contiguous District Cadre by depriving the Candidates from
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
less literate, developed or urbanized Districts/Police Units. The
impugned selection was conducted to ensure that a fair and
equitable opportunity is provided to local candidates.
21. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the averments
of para 17 clearly show that the selection is not conducted by
treating each 'Contiguous District Cadre' as a separate unit.
Instead, they introduced sub-classification based on 'Police Unit'
and based on other extraneous considerations which are
impermissible as per governing statutory provisions i.e., Order of
2018.
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance
on G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 08.04.2022 and read it conjointly with
G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 31.12.2015, to demonstrate the
methodology shown by respondents to fill up post No.21. For
post No.24, a different methodology was prescribed in the
notification. The respondents committed an error in treating the
District Commissionerate as unit and not each cadre as a
separate unit. The petitioners are admittedly 'local candidates' in
respect of Cadre-I in W.P.No.32014 of 2023 and 'local candidates'
in W.P.No.32017 of 2023 for Cadre-II. The next submission is
based on online form filed with I.A.No.2 of 2024, which shows
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
that the consideration of petitioners ought to have been on the
basis of cadre and not on the basis of district as unit.
23. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P.No.29104 of 2023 also placed reliance on para 17 of counter
of respondent No.3 to submit that admittedly they have given
complete go by to the recruitment Rules and were obsessed to
provide so called 'level playing field' to the candidates by treating
the district as unit which is impermissible.
Stand of the official respondents:
24. Sri A. Sudharshan Reddy, learned Advocate General,
highlighted the history and the background because of which
Article 371D became part of the Constitution. The basic idea
behind insertion of the said Article was to ensure equitable
distribution of posts. The official respondents also placed
reliance on relevant Paras of G.O.Ms.No.124 (Order of 2018),
dated 30.08.2018 which defines 'local area', 'local cadre' and
'local candidate'. It is submitted that in Cadre-I there were seven
battalions whereas, there were only five battalions for Cadre-II.
In order to provide equitable opportunity to all the candidates
belonging to all the Districts, two cadres were formed and the
Districts were distributed amongst these two cadres.
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
25. Refuting the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Advocate General submits that
G.O.Ms.Nos.33, 46 and 172, dated 15.05.2023, 04.04.2022 and
04.08.2021 respectively are issued pursuant to Article 371D of
the Constitution. The following lines mentioned on the forehead
of impugned G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, were highlighted.
"The Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local
Cadres and Regulations of Direct Recruitment) Orders,
2018 - Contiguous district and zonal cadres organized
under Paragraph 3 (6) - Reservation in the matter of direct
recruitment - Inter-se ratio among the constituent districts
and zones as per Paragraph 8 (4) - Orders - Issued."
Thus, it is urged that the aforesaid G.Os., have constitutional
backing what to say of statutory foundation.
26. By placing reliance on Paras 6, 7 and 8 (4) of
G.O.Ms.No.124 (Order of 2018), dated 30.08.2018, the learned
Advocate General submits that all relevant considerations
mentioned in the said order have been taken into account while
issuing G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022. Putting it differently, it
is submitted that as per sub-para 4 of Para 8 of Order of 2018,
dated 30.08.2018, the 'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local
candidate' has been given due weightage and no fault can be
found in the G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022.
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
27. So far attempt of the petitioners to establish that for post
No.24, a different procedure and table was prescribed in the
notification (Annexure P-2), the learned Advocate General
submits that the said contention is misconceived. Merely
because a table has not been prepared and reproduced in the
notification (Annexure P-2), dated 25.04.2022, District-wise, in
relation to Post No.24 in comparison to what has been mentioned
under para 2A, it will not cause any dent to the notification as
well as to G.O.Ms.No.46. To elaborate, it is submitted that in the
recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022 (Annexure P-2) in para
2B (Note-1), reference is clearly made to G.O.Ms.No.46, which
makes it clear that said G.O., and the table appended with
G.O.Ms.No.46 became part of the Notification (Annexure P.2)
itself. Table 6 of G.O.Ms.No.46 is heavily relied upon, which is
already reproduced hereinabove.
28. Furthermore, it is submitted that only one Writ Petition i.e.,
W.P.No.19341 of 2023 is filed on 21.07.2023 i.e., before
declaration of results on 04.10.2023. G.O.Ms.No.46 was issued
on 04.04.2022 and recruitment notification (Annexure P-2) was
issued on 25.04.2022. The written examination was held after
one year i.e., on 30.04.2023 and results were declared on
04.10.2023. A conjoint reading of G.O.Ms.No.46 and recruitment
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
notification dated 25.04.2022, leaves no room for any doubt that
the petitioners were fully aware about 'local areas' and 'ratios' as
reflected in Table 6 of G.O.Ms.No.46. They did not challenge it
with quite promptitude. Instead, they participated in selection
without any objection and all the petitioners approached this
Court after declaration of results except W.P.No.19341 of 2023
which was filed before declaration of results. The delay and
laches are certainly hurdle in their way.
29. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 3 and Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Lakavath Chandrashekar and others
v. Union of India and others 4. It is urged that petitions are
liable to be rejected on the ground of delay, latches and
acquiescence. The judgment in the case of Lakavath
Chandrashekar (supra) is relied upon to submit that the
petitioners have not impleaded all the selected candidates and in
absence thereof, no interference can be made. The herculean
exercise undertaken by the State from April, 2022 to recruit 5010
personnel may not be disturbed because of dissatisfaction of
certain disgruntled candidates.
(2017) 4 SCC 357
W.P.No.40714 of 2022 and batch, dated 13.12.2023.
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Stand of unofficial respondents:
30. While appearing for respondent Nos.9 to 59 in
W.P.No.32017 of 2023, Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel,
submits that whole issue boils down to various provisions/paras
of Order of 2018. Para 8 deals with reservation of local
candidates in local area. Much emphasis is laid on Para 8(4) in
general and on the phrase 'each of the local area' in particular. It
is submitted that a plain reading of Para 8(4) makes it clear that
intention of law maker was relating to 'each of the local area'.
31. Para 3(2) of G.O.Ms.No.124 (Order of 2018) is relied upon to
submit that admittedly the post of Constable (Post Code No.24) is
equivalent to Junior Assistant. Since G.O.Ms.No.124/Order of
2018 is issued in supersession of previous Presidential Order
dated 18.10.1975, the provisions of previous Presidential Orders
have lost their significance. Para 8 of G.O.Ms.No.124 is referred
to canvass the meaning of 'local areas'. The proviso which used
the expression 'each of such district shall be regarded as local
area' was again highlighted. It is submitted that Paras 3, 6, 7
and 8 make it clear about local candidates, local area,
reservation, etc. Since the Order of 2018, is clearly worded, no
other meaning can be assigned to 'local cadre', 'local area' and
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
'local candidate'. Otherwise, it would amount to re-writing the
Presidential Order by this Court which is impermissible.
32. The next limb or argument is based on G.O.Ms.No.46. The
table appended shows about 'local area' and 'local area ratio'. It
is strenuously contended that a conjoint reading of Order of 2018
and G.O.Ms.No.46 would show that the language employed in
G.O.Ms.No.46 is pari materia and borrowed from the language
used in the Order of 2018. Thus, the argument that
G.O.Ms.No.46 is contrary to the Presidential Order sans
substance.
33. In addition, learned Senior Counsel for unofficial
respondents submits that the petitioners are not able to cross the
English Chanel of acquiescence and delay. Although
W.P.Nos.19341 of 2023 was filed on 21.07.2023 before
declaration of result, the fact remains that this Writ Petition was
also filed after more than one year from the date of issuance of
G.O.Mos.No.46 and recruitment notification dated 25.04.2022
(Annexure P-2). Only when in W.P.No.19341 of 2023 the interim
order previously granted was modified by reserving 20 posts for
the petitioners therein, the other petitioners of other Writ
Petitions promptly filed petitions thereafter to reap similar
benefit. They permitted the grass to grow under their feet and
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
suddenly tried to reap same benefits. They appeared in the
examination without any objection and demur and therefore, the
petitions are liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
Rejoinder submission:-
34. In rejoinder submissions, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.32014 and 32017 of 2023,
reiterated that the recruitment notification (Annexure P-2)
provides the 'method of selection'. In that head, the provisions of
G.O.Ms.No.46 were not borrowed. It is only borrowed in
offending para of notification which does not talk about the said
G.O.Ms.No.46.
35. The petitioners are not 'fence-sitters' is the next submission
of learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that when
results were uploaded in the portal of respondent Department,
for the first time, the petitioners came to know about the method
of selection and marking and immediately thereafter they filed
petitions. Thus, neither acquiescence nor estoppel or delay
comes in their way.
36. Article 371D of the Constitution is referred to show the
object and purpose for issuance of Order of 2018. Clause (f) of
G.O.Ms.No.14 was referred to, at the cost of repetition, to argue
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
that the entire Cadre-I and II should form basis for selection and
not the Revenue Districts/Police Commissionerates. Every
revenue district is not a police district. Certain
Commissionerates are consisting of area of more than revenue
districts.
37. G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 30.06.2021, is referred to show that
cadres have been formed by the State Government. After having
formed the cadre, there was no further power to issue
G.O.Ms.No.46.
38. Reference is made to N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka
Public Service Commission 5 to canvass that the vested right
created pursuant to advertisement/notification cannot be taken
away by the respondents.
39. Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in other
connected matters borrowed the argument of Sri G.Vidyasagar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.32014 and 32017 of 2023. In W.P.No.32014 of 2023,
written synopsis are filed.
(1990) 3 SCC 157
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
40. The parties confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above. We have heard the parties at length and
perused the relevant documents.
FINDINGS:
Article 371D of the Constitution:
41. A minute reading of this Article makes it clear that it makes
special provisions with respect to the State of Andhra Pradesh or
the State of Telangana. Clause (1) is an enabling provision which
permits the President to pass order with respect to the above
States having regard to their requirement and with a view to
provide equivalent opportunities and facilities for the people
belonging to different parts of such States in the matter of public
employment and education. Clause (2) shows that the
Presidential Order may be issued for the purpose of requiring the
Government to organise any class/classes of posts under the
State into different local cadres for different parts of the State
and allot in accordance with such principal and procedure as
may be specified in the order in relation to local cadres so
organised. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article 317-D deals
with local area and provides the mandate for the State to
determine the local area in the light of aforesaid Sub-clause (b).
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Sub-clause (c) of Clause (2) is about providing the extent, manner
and conditions for giving preference or reservation.
42. The Apex Court in Government of A.P. v.
A.Suryanarayanarao 6 has considered Article 371D in extenso.
In the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties that
the Presidential Order dated 30.08.2018 i.e., Order of 2018 is a
Presidential Order passed in exercise of power conferred by
Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution. The
object behind brining Article 371D into the book of Constitution
is explained by Apex Court in A.Suryanarayanarao (supra) in
lucid terms and it reads as under:
"3...It is clear from these provisos that the primary purpose of
Article 371-D was to promote speedy development of the
backward areas of the State of Andhra Pradesh with a view
to secure balance in the development of the State as a
whole and to provide equitable opportunities to different
areas of the State in the matter of education, employment
and career prospects in public service. Accordingly the
Presidential Order was made."
(Emphasis supplied)
43. Before dealing with rival interpretations advanced by both
sides, at the outset, we may remind ourselves about the basic
principles of interpretation of statutes. The statute must be read
as a whole in its context. Statute to be construed to make it
effective and workable and if meaning is plain and unambiguous,
effect must be given to it, irrespective of consequences (see
1991 Supp (2) SCC 367
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Nelson Motis v. Union of India 7). The guiding rules of
interpretation is for avoiding rejection of words. In the instant
case, as rightly pointed out by the parties the governing mother
statue is the Presidential Order of 2018. It is noteworthy that the
expressions 'local area', local candidate' and 'local cadre' are
telescoped and used in different Paras of Order of 2018. Thus all
relevant paras need to be read conjointly and carefully to
determine the correct meaning and assign them correct
interpretation.
The Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local
Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018
(Order of 2018):
44. In these batch of Writ Petitions, the said Presidential Order
is not subject matter of challenge. Interestingly, the petitioners
and respondents both have heavily relied upon various Paras of
this Presidential Order and tried to interpret the same in their
favour.
45. As noticed above, the stand of the petitioners is that once
two cadres viz., Contiguous District Cadre-I and II are framed,
the local Police Units/Commissionerates fades into
insignificance. Each Cadre-I and Cadre-II should be treated as
separate unit for Post Code No.24 and all eligible candidates
(1992) 4 SCC 711
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
should have been considered as against each cadre. In other
words, the action of the respondents is criticized in
sub-classifying such cadres on the strength of G.O.Ms.No.46,
dated 04.04.2022 and it is contended that the same is clear
breach of Order of 2018. Taking a diametrically opposite stand,
the respondents urged that G.O.Ms.No.46 is nothing but a
document issued for implementation of the definitions and
directions contained in the Order of 2018. Thus, the interesting
quagmire before the Court is to examine whether the impugned
orders are issued in consonance with Order of 2018 or not.
46. It is apposite to consider the relevant Paras of Order of
2018 to ascertain the correct answer. The following definitions
are relevant and they read as under:
"2. Interpretation.-
(1) In this Order, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) and (b)...
(c) "Local Area" in relation to any local cadre, means the
local area specified in paragraph 6 for direct recruitment to
posts in such local cadre;
(d) "Local Authority" does not include any local authority
which is not subject to the control of the State Government;
(e) "Local Cadre" means any local cadre of posts under the
State Government organized in pursuance of paragraph 3,
or constituted otherwise for any part of the State;
(f) "Local Candidate" in relation to any local area, means a
candidate who qualifies under paragraph 7 as a local
candidate in relation to such local area;"
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
47. The relevant portion of Para 3 reads thus:
"3. Organisation of Local cadres.-
(1) The State Government shall, within a period of 36
months from the commencement of this Order, organise
classes of posts in the civil services of, and classes of civil
posts under the State into various local cadres for different
parts of the State to the extent and in the manner,
hereinafter provided:
Provided that, notwithstanding the expiration of the
said period, the President may by order, require the State
Government, whenever he considers it expedient to do so,
to organise any classes of posts in the civil services of and
classes of civil posts under the State into different local
cadres or different parts of the State.
(2) The posts belonging to the category of Junior Assistant
and each of the other categories equivalent to or lower than
that of a Junior Assistant in each department in each
district shall be organised into separate cadre.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph,
subparagraph (1) of paragraph 6 and sub-paragraph (1) of
paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to
or lower than that of a Junior Assistant if the minimum of
the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or
where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay is equal
to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a Junior
Assistant.
(3) The posts belonging to each non-gazetted category of
Teachers in Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad
and Government Schools in each District shall be organized
into a separate integrated cadre and the posts belonging to
all other non-gazetted category of Teachers and equivalent
or similar category of posts in each department under the
State Government in each district shall be organized into
separate cadre.
(4) The posts belonging to each category above the category
of Junior Assistant and up to and inclusive of the category
of Superintendent and each of the other equivalent
categories in each department in each Zone shall be
organized into a separate cadre.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph,
subparagraph (2) of paragraph 6 and sub-paragraph (2) of
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to
or lower than that of a Superintendent if the minimum of
the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or
where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay is equal
to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a
Superintendent.
(5) The posts belonging to each category above the category
of Superintendent and up to and inclusive of the category of
Deputy Collector and each of the other equivalent categories
in each department in each Multi-Zone shall be organized
into a separate cadre.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this sub-paragraph,
subparagraph (3) of paragraph 6 and sub-paragraph (3) of
paragraph 8, a category shall be deemed to be equivalent to
or lower than that of a Deputy Collector if the minimum of
the scale of pay of a post belonging to that category or
where the post carries a fixed pay, such fixed pay is equal
to or lower than the minimum of the scale of pay of a
Deputy Collector.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs
(2), (3) and (4), the State Government may, where it
considers it expedient to do so, organize the posts belonging
to any of the categories referred to therein, in any
department, or any establishment thereof, in two or more
contiguous districts (either full or part) or zones, as the case
may be, into a single cadre."
(Emphasis Supplied)
48. In order to determine a 'local area', it is necessary to
examine relevant part of Para 6 of Order of 2018 which reads as
under:
"6. Local Areas. -
(1) Each district shall be regarded as a local area,-
(i) for direct recruitment to posts in any local cadre under
the State Government comprising all or any of the posts
in any department in the district belonging to the
category of a Junior Assistant or to any other category
equivalent to or lower than that of a Junior Assistant.
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any
local authority within that district carrying a scale of pay,
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
the minimum of which does not exceed the minimum of
the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant or a fixed pay not
exceeding that amount.
(iii) for direct recruitment to the posts belonging to each
non-gazetted category of Teachers in Mandal Praja
Parishad, Zilla Praja Parishad and Government schools in
each district and the posts belonging to all other non-
gazetted category of teachers and equivalent or similar
category of posts in each department under the State
Government in each district:
Provided that where a single cadre has been organized
for two or more districts under sub-paragraph (6) of
paragraph 3 of posts belonging to any of the categories
referred to in clauses (i), (ii) or (iii), each of such
districts shall be regarded as separate local area in
respect of such cadre.
(2) Each Zone shall be regarded as a local area,-
(i) for direct recruitment to the posts in any local cadre
under the State Government comprising all or any of the
posts in any department in that Zone belonging to each
category above the category of Junior Assistant and up to
and inclusive of the category of Superintendent and each
of the other equivalent categories in each department;
(ii) for direct recruitment to posts in any cadre under any
local authority within that zone, carrying a scale of pay,
the minimum of which exceeds the minimum of the scale
of pay of Junior Assistant but does not exceed the
minimum of the scale of pay of Superintendent in
Government department:
Provided that where a single cadre has been organized
for two or more zones under sub-paragraph (6) of
paragraph 3 of posts belonging to any of the categories
referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii,) each of such zones
shall be regarded as separate local area in respect of
such cadre."
(Emphasis Supplied)
49. A conjoint reading of definition of 'local area' with Para 6 of
Order of 2018 shows that it is made crystal clear that each
district shall be regarded as a 'local area'. The proviso to Para 6
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
(1)(iii) makes it further clear that 'each of such district shall be
regarded as separate local area in respect of such cadre'. Thus,
there is no manner of doubt that Order of 2018 provides that
each district shall be regarded as 'local area'.
50. The definition of 'local cadre' needs to be read with Para 3
of Order of 2018. A combined reading of definition and Para 3
clarifies that sub-para 2 deals with District Cadre, sub-para 4
deals with Zonal Cadre and sub-para 5 deals with Multi-zonal
Cadre. In the instant case, sub-para 2 of Para 3 would be
applicable because admittedly the post of Constable is equivalent
to the category of Junior Assistant. Sub-para 2 of Para 3 in no
uncertain terms provides that in that category, each district shall
be organised into a separate cadre.
51. Sub-para 6 of Para 3 begins with a non-obstante clause and
envisages that the State Government can organise the cadres
into two or more or may reduce it into a single cadre.
52. It is apt to examine Para 7 of Order of 2018, relevant part of
which reads thus:
"7. Local Candidate.- (1) A candidate for direct recruitment to
any post shall be regarded as a local candidate in relation to
a local area,-
(a) in cases where a minimum educational qualification has
been prescribed for recruitment to the posts,-
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
(i) if he has studied in an educational institution or
educational institutions in such local area for a period
of not less than four consecutive academic years ending
with the academic year in which he appeared or, as the
case may be, first appeared for the relevant qualifying
examination; or
(ii) where during the whole or any part of the four
consecutive academic years ending with the academic
year in which he appeared or as the case may be first
appeared for the relevant qualifying examination he has
not studied in any educational institution, if he has
resided in that local area for a period of not less than
four years immediately preceding the date of
commencement of the qualifying examination in which
he appeared, or as the case may be, first appeared.
(b) In cases where no minimum educational qualifications has
been prescribed for recruitment to the post, if he has resided
in that local area for a period of not less than four years
immediately preceding the date on which the post is notified
for recruitment.
Explanations:- For the purpose of this paragraph,-
(i) 'educational institution' means a University or any
educational institution recognized by the State Government, a
University or other competent authority;
(ii) relevant qualifying examination in relation to a post
means,-
(a) the examination, a pass in which is the minimum
educational qualification prescribed for the post;
(b) the Seventh Class examination or an examination
declared by the State Government to be equivalent to the
Seventh Class examination;
whichever is lower;
(Emphasis Supplied)
53. The definition of 'local candidate' is to be read with Para 7
of Order of 2018. If both are read together, it will be clear like
noon day that a person is a 'local candidate' in relation to a 'local
area'. Thus, we have to revert back to 'local areas' mentioned in
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Para 6. Para 7 which defines 'local candidate' provides that a
candidate shall be regarded as a 'local candidate' in relation to a
'local area'. In order to determine the 'local area', we need to fall
back on Para 6 which defines 'local area' and provides that each
district shall be regarded as a local area.
54. In these Writ Petitions, there exists no dispute between the
parties that the petitioners are claiming benefit of 'reservation' in
the matter of direct recruitment to the extent of 95% as 'local
candidates' in relation to 'local area'.
55. In this regard, it is apt to refer to Para 8 of Order of 2018
and the relevant portion of it reads thus:
"8. Reservation in the matter of Direct Recruitment.-
(1) 95 % of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any
time,-
(a) in any local cadre under the State Government
comprising posts belonging to the category of
Junior Assistant or a Category equivalent to or
lower than that of Junior Assistant;
(b) in any cadre under a local authority comprising
posts carrying a scale of pay the minimum of
which, or a fixed pay which does not exceed the
minimum of the scale of pay of a Junior Assistant ;
(c) in any local cadre comprising the posts
belonging to each non-gazetted category of
Teachers in Mandal Praja Parishad, Zilla Praja
Parishad and Government schools in each district
and the posts belonging to all other non-gazetted
category of teachers and equivalent / similar
category of posts in each department under the
State Government in each district,
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation to
the local area such cadre.
(2) 95% of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any
time,-
(a) in any local cadre under the State Government
comprising all or any of the posts in any
department in that Zone belonging to each category
above the category of Junior Assistant and up to
and inclusive of the category of Superintendent and
each of the other equivalent categories in each
department; and
(b) in any cadre under any local authority within
that zone, carrying a scale of pay, the minimum of
which exceeds the minimum of the scale of pay of
Junior Assistant but does not exceed the minimum
of the scale of pay of Superintendent in
Government department.
shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in relation
to the local area in respect of such cadre.
(3) 95 % of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment at any
time ,-
a) in any local cadre under the State Government
comprising all or any of the posts in any
department in that Multi-Zone belonging to each
category above the category of Superintendent and
up to and inclusive of the category of Deputy
Collector and each of the other equivalent
categories in each department; and
b) in any cadre under any local authority within
that Multi-Zone, carrying a scale of pay, the
minimum of which exceeds the minimum of the
scale of pay of Superintendent in Government
department but does not exceed the minimum of
the scale of pay of Deputy Collector in Government
department,
shall be reserved in favour of local candidates in
relation to the local area of such cadre.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs
(1) and (2), where in respect of any of the categories referred
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
to in the said paragraphs a single cadre has been organised
for two or more districts or zones under sub-paragraph (6)
of paragraph 3, 95% of the posts to be filled by direct
recruitment at any time in such cadre shall be reserved in
favour of and allocated amongst the local candidates in
relation to each of the local areas in respect of such cadre
in the ratio as prescribed by the State Government basing
on the population of such local areas."
(Emphasis Supplied)
56. A microscopic reading of Para 8(1)(a) makes it obligatory for
the Government to reserve 95% posts in a local cadre in favour of
local candidates in relation to the 'local areas' of such cadre.
Same statutory mandate is ingrained in sub-para 2 (a) and (b).
The language employed in aforesaid provisions shows that in
order to make the provision mandatory, the word 'shall' is used
for the purpose of providing 95% reservation in favour of 'local
candidates' in relation to 'local area'.
57. Pertinently, a cursory reading of definitions and Paras 3, 5,
6, 7 and 8 shows that the terms 'local cadre', 'local candidate'
and 'local area' are used in all these paragraphs. In order to
gather the correct meaning of 'local area', 'local cadre' and 'local
candidate', we must read the relevant definition with relevant
paragraphs about which reference is made in the concerned
definition clause itself. In our opinion, any other method of
interpretation will not be in consonance with the intent of Order
of 2018.
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
58. If Para 8 is read in this perspective and background, it
leaves no room for any doubt that 'local candidate' is in relation
to a 'local area' which essentially means each district {see Para
6(1)}. A minute reading of Sub-para (4) of Para 8 on which heavy
reliance is placed by both sides, it will be clear that it begins with
an overriding provision which overrides sub-paragraphs (1) and
(2). Sub-paragraph (1) deals with posts which are upto the post
of Junior Assistant (which is admittedly equivalent to Constable),
whereas Sub-para (2) talks about posts above Junior Assistant
and upto Superintendent. In the instant Writ Petitions, we are
not concerned with Sub-para (2) because admittedly the post of
Constable is equivalent to Junior Assistant.
59. Sub-para (4) aforesaid permits the Government to organise
a single cadre for two or more districts/zones. Thus, it is an
enabling provision and it is nobody's case that creation of two
cadres as Cadre-I and II for Constable is bad in law.
60. A minute reading of Para 8(4) will show that 'such' singular
or bifurcated cadre must be reserved to the extent of 95% for
'local candidates' in relation to each of 'local area'. Reverting
back to Para 6, it is noteworthy that each district must be treated
as local area. Thus, as per Sub-para (4), 95% reservation must
be provided for 'local candidates' in relation to each of the 'local
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
areas' (each district is regarded as 'local area' as per Para 6). In
addition to aforesaid, Para 8(4) further provides that 95% of posts
of such cadre shall be reserved in favour of 'local candidates' in
relation to each of 'local areas' (each district) in the ratio as
prescribed by State Government basing on population of such local
areas. The statute again refers to 'local areas' which as per Para
6 envisages that each district must be regarded as local area.
Thus, Para 8(4) in no uncertain terms, gives power to the
Government to decide the ratio based on population of such local
area/each district. If G.O.Ms.No.46 is examined in the light of
this interpretation, conclusion will be inevitable that it was
issued to translate the mandate of Order of 2018 into reality.
The relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No.46 reads as under:
"ORDER:
Government have approved schemes for organization
of local cadres in accordance with the provisions of
Paragraph 3 of the Telangana Public Employment
(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order, 2018 in all Departments, vide order 3rd
read above. In respect of 123 categories of posts in 9
Departments as shown in the Annexure-I appended to this
order, which are required to be organized as district
cadres and zonal cadre and contiguous zonal cadre posts,
respectively, in terms of the provisions made in Paragraph 3
(6) of the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of
Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order,
2018.
2. Sub-paragraph (4) of Paragraph 8 of the Telangana
Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and
Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2018, provides the
notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraphs (1)
and (2), where in respect of any of the categories referred to
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
in the said paragraphs a single cadres has been organized
for two or more districts or zones under sub-paragraph (6)
of paragraph 3, 95% of the posts to be filled by direct
recruitment at any time in such cadre shall be reserved in
favour of and allocated amongst the local candidates in
relation to each of the local areas in respect of such
cadre in ratio as prescribed by the State Government
basing on the population of such local areas.
3. Accordingly, Government direct that 95% of the posts
to be filled by direct recruitment at any time in the above
contiguous cadres, shall be reserved in favour of and
allocated among the local candidates in relation to each of
the local areas in respect of such cadres, in ratios as
prescribed in Annexures I to III appended to this order.
4. All the Departments of Secretariat/all the Heads of
Departments/All the District Collectors in the State shall
take necessary action accordingly.
(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF
TELANGANA)
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"
(Emphasis Supplied)
61. Annexure-I to G.O.Ms.46 prescribes 'local area ratio'. The
relevant heading refers to prescription as per Table 6 in
Annexure-II. For 'local area ratio' also, Table 1 of Annexure-III is
referred. Table 6 is already reproduced by us in preceding
paragraphs. This contains the heading of 'local areas' and 'ratio'
in relation to both the cadres. In our opinion, Order of 2018
permits the Government to undertake aforesaid exercise. In
other words, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of
argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the local
area yardstick considered by the respondents is in utter violation
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
of Order of 2018. Similarly, we are of the opinion that Order of
2018 permits the respondents to fill up 95% posts from local
areas in the manner they are filling up in the instant case. Para
8(4) of Order of 2018 makes it obligatory for the official
respondents to provide reservation to 'local candidates' in
relation to each of local area (as per Para 6, each district) in the
ratio as prescribed by Government basing on the population of
such local areas (each district as per Para 6). We find substance
in the argument of respondents that G.O.Ms.No.46 is issued in
consonance of and in furtherance of Order of 2018. Hence, the
argument that since it was not published in the gazette it is liable
to be interfered with, is devoid of any merit.
62. We also find substantial force in the argument of learned
Advocate General and Sri Goda Shiva, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for unofficial respondents that merely because beneath
para 2B (related Post Code No.24) similar table is not prepared
which is being prepared for Post Code Nos.21 and 22 will not
make any difference for the simple reason that note-I below para
2B of the notification borrows G.O.Ms.No.46. It says that 95% of
the vacancies in the above Contiguous District cadres shall be
reserved in favour of and allocated among the local Candidates in
relation to 'each of the local areas' in respect of such cadres as
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
per the ratio communicated by the Government vide
G.O.Ms.No.46, General Administration (SPF.II) Department,
dated 04.04.2022.
63. After reading this note, there was no scope of any confusion
for the candidates that G.O.Ms.No.46 will be the governing
criteria for the purpose of recruitment. The recruitment
notification is issued in furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.46 and
G.O.Ms.No.46 was issued to translate Order of 2018 into reality.
Thus no fault can be found in the impugned provisions.
64. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners,
during the course of arguments placed substantial reliance on
Clause 19E(i) 'final selection' for Post Code No.21 and Clause
19E(iv) for Post Code No.24 of notification (Annexure P-2) to
differentiate that methods and criteria are different. We do not
see any merit in this contention. Clause 19E(iv) which deals with
Post Code No.24 clearly refers to Order of 2018. While
interpreting the various paragraphs of Order of 2018, we have
already given our stamp of approval to the methodology and
procedure adopted by the respondents, and hence, we are unable
to give any other interpretation to Clause 19E(iv). Even
otherwise, it is trite that if there exists a difference between
statutory provision and advertisement, it is the statutory
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
provision which will prevail and must be followed (see
Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India 8.
For similar reason, we are unable to accept the contention of
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners about his contention
based on Clause 2(f) 'selection' mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.14,
dated 08.04.2022. This provision is also based on Order of 2018.
As per this Clause 2(f), the posts are required to be filled up from
the 'local candidates'.
65. At the cost of repetition, to determine meaning of 'local
candidates', one has to read Para 2(f) with Paras 6 and 7 of Order
of 2018. Upon cumulative reading of these provisions, we have
already held that the action of the respondent Department
cannot be said to be in the breach of Order of 2018. In our
judgment, since the petitioners could not make out their case on
merits, it is not necessary for us to deal with the issues relating
to estoppel, acquiescence, delay, etc. However, we are not
inclined to throw these Writ Petitions overboard on the ground
that selected candidates have not been impleaded for the simple
reason that unofficial respondent Nos.9 to 59 in W.No.32017 of
2013 are selected candidates. They got themselves impleaded.
(2022) 11 SCC 392
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
66. The matter may be viewed from another angle. As held in
A.Suryanarayanarao (supra), the purpose of Article 371D is to
promote speedy development of the backward areas of State in
the matter of education and employment providing equitable
opportunities to different area is one of the main underlying
objects.
67. While inserting Para 8(4) in Order of 2018, the said object
became operating reason and accordingly in the Presidential
Order of 2018, 95% posts of organized cadres are reserved in
favour of 'local candidates' in relation to each of the 'local areas'
as per the ratio prescribed by Government. The fixation of ratio
must be founded upon the population of 'local areas' as per Para
8(4) of Order of 2018.
68. The conventional way of interpreting or construing a statute
is to seek the 'intention' of its maker. Justice G.P.Singh in his
celebrated book 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' stated that
the intention of law maker assimilates two aspects. In one
aspect, it carries the concept of 'meaning' and in another aspect,
it conveys the concept of 'purpose' and 'object'.
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
69. 'Each word, phrase and sentence' observed MUKHERJEA,J
'is to be construed in the light of general purpose of Act itself' (see
Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras 9).
70. In the words of CHINAPPA REDDY.J, 'interpretation must
depend on the text and context. They are bases of interpretation.
One may well say if text is the texture, context is what gives
colour. Neither can be ignored. That interpretation is best which
makes the textural interpretation match the contextual. A
statute is best interpreted when you know why it was enacted
(see Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Company Ltd. 10).
71. The words of wisdom by KRISHNA IYER, J are: 'to be literal
in meaning is to see the skin and miss the soul. The judicial key
to construction is the composite perception of deha and dehi of
the provision (see Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v.
Ramjee 11)'.
72. Reverting back to statute in hand i.e., Order of 2018, it is
apt to see that law maker intended to make certain provisions
mandatory. For instance, Paras 3(2), 6(1), 8(1),(2),(3) and (4) are
pregnant with the word 'shall'. Thus it is imperative for the
1953 AIR 274
1987 AIR 1023
(1977) 2 SCC 256
SP, J & RRN, J
Wp_19341_2023 & batch
Department to treat each district as a local area, provide
reservation to local candidates as per ratio based on population
of 'local areas'. If we accept the interpretation advanced by the
petitioners, no ratio based upon population of 'local areas' can be
prescribed and mandate ingrained in para 8(4) will vanish in thin
air. Applying the litmus test of textual and contextual
interpretation, such an interpretation suggested by the
petitioners cannot be accepted.
73. In view of foregoing analysis, in our considered opinion, the
action of the respondents is in consonance with the spirit of
Article 371D of the Constitution and Order of 2018. We are
unable to hold that the impugned Clauses/Table of
G.O.Ms.No.46, dated 04.04.2022, and Note-1 below para of 2B of
notification dated 25.04.2022 are bad in law. Consequently, we
find no reason to interfere in these Writ Petitions.
74. The Writ Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions
pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
SUJOY PAUL, J
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
28th August, 2024.
Note: L.R. copy be marked.
B/o. TJMR/GVR
