Telangana High Court

The State Of Telangana vs Kadthala Mahesh on 14 February, 2024

Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili

      *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


                      +W.A. No.1085 OF 2023


% 14-02-2024

# The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary to
  Government, Home Department, Hyderabad, and others.
                                                      ....Appellant

Vs.

$ Kadthala Mahesh
                                                       ....
Respondent

!Counsel for the appellant     : Govt. Pleader for Services-I


Counsel for the respondent    : Ramesh Chilla




<Gist :




>Head Note:




? Cases referred:

(2022) SCC 394
                                    2                        AKS,J & RRN,J
                                                       W.A.No.1085 of 2023




        IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                         HYDERABAD

                                 ****

                    W.A. No.1085 OF 2023

Between:

The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary to
Government, Home Department, Hyderabad, and others.
                                                      ....Appellant

Vs.

Kadthala Mahesh
                                                       ....
Respondent




ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 14.02.2024



      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO


1.      Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
        may be allowed to see the Judgments?            : Yes


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


3.      Whether His Lordship wishes to
        see the fair copy of the Judgment?              : Yes



                                    __________________________________
                                    NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
                                 3                      AKS,J & RRN,J
                                                  W.A.No.1085 of 2023




  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
                        AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

               WRIT APPEAL No.1085 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

(Per RRN,J)

This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellants-State

aggrieved by the order dated 14.07.2023 in W.P.No.18093 of

2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

2. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I

appearing for the appellants and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned

counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the

appellants contended that pursuant to the Notification vide

Rc.No.88/Rect./Admn.1/2018, dated 31.05.2018 issued by the

Chairman, TSLPRB, Hyderabad, for filling up the vacancies of

SCT PCs (Civil) and/or equivalent posts as per the Special

Rules, called as "T.S. Police (Stipendiary Cadet Trainee), Rules

1999, issued vide G.O.Ms.No.315, Home (Police) Department,

dated 13.10.1999, along with the amendments made from time

to time, the respondent herein was provisionally selected for the 4 AKS,J & RRN,J

post of SCT PC (Civil) from Cyberabad/RR Unit and after

verification of antecedents, he was subjected to Medical

Examination at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad on

24.10.2019, wherein he was declared unfit due to vision

problem. As per the report dated 24.01.2020 submitted by the

Superintendent, Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, the

respondent was examined by the Medical Board consisting of

three doctors (Ophthalmologist) and his distant vision of right

eye was recorded as '6/18' and left eye as 6/19 as such,

declared him unfit for the said post. As per the amendment of

SCT Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.97, dated 01.05.2006, distant

vision should be '6/6' of both right eye and left eye and the

same was mentioned in para 16-E of the Recruitment

Notification dated 31.05.2018. Since the respondent was

declared unfit by the Medical Board of Sarojini Devi Eye

Hospital, subsequently based on report, the respondent was

issued a show-cause notice dated 10.03.2020 calling for his

explanation as to why his provisional selection should not be

cancelled. Pursuant to the said show-cause notice dated

10.03.2020, the respondent submitted his explanation on

19.03.2020 stating that he took laser treatment and got cured 5 AKS,J & RRN,J

of his sight problem, and hence, requested to refer him to

another hospital for re-examination. Having not been satisfied

with the said explanation, the provisional selection of the

petitioner was cancelled vide Memo No.213/Rect.Genl.2/2019,

dated 07.09.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent

herein filed W.P.No.18093 of 2020, and a learned Single Judge

of this Court allowed the said writ petition vide order dated

14.07.2023 observing as follows :-

"Having regard to the submission made and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Memorandum in Rc.No.213/Rect./ Genl.2/2019, dated 07.09.2020 issued by the Respondent No.2 is set aside, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein. The respondents are directed to conduct re-medical examination to the petitioner with regard to his vision and if he is found medically fit, consider his candidature for provisional selection to the post of SCT PC (Civil) in Cyberabad/RR Unit in Recruitment Notification-2018. It is made clear that this case shall not be treated as precedent, as I have decided it purely on the facts and in the peculiar circumstances of the case".

4. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is

filed by the State.

6 AKS,J & RRN,J

5. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the

appellants-State further contended that the learned Single

Judge ought to have seen that in the Notification dated

31.05.2018, it was clearly mentioned that in order to avert

getting disappointed at a later stage, the candidates were

advised to have themselves examined by a Civil Surgeon before

applying for the examination to ensure that they meet the

prescribed physical and medical standards. As per SCT Rules,

the provisionally selected candidates shall be referred to the

District Head Quarter Hospital for medical examination/fitness.

For any expert opinion, candidates shall be referred to the

Osmania/Gandhi Hospital based on the recommendations

made by the District Headquarters Hospital. Candidates who

are declared unfit in eye related issues shall be referred to

Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad, based on the

recommendations made by the District Head Quarters Hospital.

The candidates can be referred only once for such

recommendations. However, in view of the false information

furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner, the learned Single

Judge allowed the writ petition. In fact, no candidate will be

referred thrice for medical examination based on the 7 AKS,J & RRN,J

recommendations made by the District Head Quarters Hospital.

The learned Single Judge ought to have seen that the

respondent/writ petitioner took laser treatment after he was

declared unfit in the second Medical Examination conducted by

the Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital. The respondent/writ petitioner

was first examined on 24.10.2019 at Osmania General

Hospital, and after a gap of three months, he was again

examined at Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital on 24.10.2020. Only

after he was declared unfit by the Medical Board of Sarojini

Devi Eye Hospital, he appears to have taken treatment and filed

the writ petition. The learned Single Judge ought to have seen

that the process of 2018 recruitment was completed long back

and the candidates selected therein have already completed the

Induction training and were appointed on a regular basis.

Further, there are no vacancies available in respect of the

Notification issued in 2018, and thereafter, another Notification

was issued on 25.04.2022 and it is in the final stage of

completing the selection process.

6. In support of his contentions, the learned

Government Pleader appearing for the appellants relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in STATE OF 8 AKS,J & RRN,J

GUJARAT AND OTHERS Vs. R.J.PATHAN AND OTHERS1,

wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows :-

"16. From the impugned order [R.J. Pathan Project Implementation Unit v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 2467] passed by the Division Bench of the High Court it appears that the High Court has observed hereinabove that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the order of absorption and regularisation and if necessary, by creating supernumerary posts, will not be treated as a precedent in other cases. Even such a direction could not have been passed by the Division Bench of the High Court as there were no peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted the above observation. No such order of absorption and/or regularisation even if required for creating supernumerary posts and not to treat the same as precedent could have been passed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India".

7. Learned Government Pleader further contended that the

learned Single Judge, while passing the order impugned in the

present appeal observed that "this case shall not be treated as

precedent, as I have decided it purely on the facts and in the

peculiar circumstances of this case". As observed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the above judgment, no such power is available

(2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 394 9 AKS,J & RRN,J

to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

to issue a direction or grant relief considering the 'peculiar facts

and circumstances', which is not to be treated as a precedent.

As such, the learned Single Judge ought not to have passed the

impugned order. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the

Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the

learned Single Judge.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-writ petitioner submits that the respondent has

submitted a representation dated 29.01.2020 to the appellants

requesting them to conduct the re-medical examination.

However, there was no response from the authorities

concerned. There are several candidates who were afforded

three opportunities to undergo medical examination. Therefore,

the appellant authorities are not justified in rejecting the

candidature of the respondent on the sole ground that his

vision did not correspond to the norms prescribed in the

recruitment notification. However, the learned Single Judge,

after hearing both sides and after considering the material on

record, has rightly allowed the writ petition and there are no 10 AKS,J & RRN,J

grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single

Judge. Therefore, the Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

9. This Court, having considered the rival submissions

made by learned counsel for the respective parties, is of the

view that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition

observing at para '6' of the order as follows :-

".... The respondents might also be true in contending that there cannot be any further medical examination as per the convenience of the petitioner and if such procedure is permitted, there will be no finality with the selection process. But however, in view of the fact that the petitioner underwent surgery for correcting his vision and the re-medical examination was conducted just after six days from the date of his surgery, and as such his vision was not completely rectified and also in view of the fact that the petitioner could have been selected as SCT PC (Civil) but for his medical invalidation due to vision problem, which was subsequently got rectified by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is given one more opportunity to undergo medical examination in order to comply the vision standards prescribed by the respondent Board for his selection to the post of SCT PC (Civil)."

10. The above observations made by the learned Single

Judge are incorrect because, on one hand, the learned Single 11 AKS,J & RRN,J

Judge is accepting the contention of the respondents therein

and on the other hand, the learned Single Judge is accepting

the contention of the petitioner therein while allowing the writ

petition. Further, the process of 2018 recruitment has already

been completed long back and another Notification was also

issued on 25.04.2022 as submitted by the learned Government

Pleader and in view of the said circumstances, the learned

Single Judge ought not to have allowed the writ petition. The

observations made by the learned Single Judge are

contradictory to each other. Based on the recruitment