Telangana High Court
Kanamalla Harikrishna vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others on 22 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.5871 of 2023
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri K. Kiran Kumar, Learned counsel for the petitioner and
Sri K. Pavan Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for High Court for
the State of Telangana, for respondent No.2.
2. On the joint request, the matter is finally heard.
3. In this petition, the grievance of petitioner is that although
he was provisionally selected for the post of Stenographer Grade-III,
his provisional selection was erroneously cancelled.
4. The admitted facts between the parties are that the
petitioner, unofficial respondent and other similarly situated
candidates submitted their candidature pursuant to Notification
dated 31.07.2019, inviting candidature for the post in question.
The petitioner and other candidates were considered and
petitioner's name finds place in the provisional selected list.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
abstract of vacancies in Karimnagar District shows that there were
two vacancies in SC category, out of which, one was reserved for
women. Thus, the petitioner had a claim against one SC vacancy
which is not earmarked for women. The stand of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that as per the qualification prescribed, the
petitioner although was not having the qualification of passing
shorthand higher grade examination and was only having
qualification of passing shorthand lower grade examination, the
unofficial respondent alone should not have been selected when he
was only remaining candidate having qualification of higher grade
examination. He fairly submits that he is not challenging the
validity of Recruitment Rules yet the official respondents should
have considered his claim because in the written examination
conducted by the selecting authority, present petitioner has
secured 52.33 marks whereas, unofficial respondent has secured
49.83 marks.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2
submits that the selection in question is governed by the statutory
Recruitment Rules issued through G.O.Ms.No.29, dated
18.05.2018. The aforesaid Notification is issued in exercise of
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the
Recruitment Rules are statutory in nature.
7. By taking this Court to Item 6 of Annexure-P1 of the Rules,
learned counsel for the unofficial respondent submits that a
conjoint reading of the Annexure as well as the qualification
prescribed through the aforesaid Notification makes it clear that
the candidates, who have passed the lower grade examination, can
be considered only if candidates having passed examination by
higher grade are not available. Since the unofficial respondent is
admittedly having qualification of higher grade examination, the
present petitioner, who has only passed the lower grade
examination, has no enforceable right. Apart from this, reliance is
placed on the document, dated 19.06.2012, filed with the counter
to bolster the submission that even lower grade qualification
acquired by the petitioner from the State of Techinical Board, Tamil
Nadu is not equivalent and the State Board of Technical Education
and Training, Hyderabad has not recommended the petitioner.
8. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the
parties.
9. A comparative reading of Entry 6 of Annexure-P1,
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 18.05.2018, shows that the qualification so
prescribed in the Recruitment Rules is reduced in writing in the
shape of "qualification prescribed". The relevant entry reads as
under:
"3. Must have passed Telangna Government
Techinacal Examination in English Shorthand by
Higher Grade (120 words per minute) or equivalent
examination.
Provided that if candidates who have passed the
examination by Higher Grade are not available, those
who have passed the examination by Lower Grade will
be considered".
(Emphasis by us)
10. A plain reading of this statutory provision, which is not
subject matter of challenge before us, makes it clear that if a higher
grade examination passed candidate is available, those who have
passed the lower grade examination will not be considered. The
language of the Rule is plain and unambiguous. This is trite that
when Rule is clear and unambiguous, it should be given effect to,
irrespective of the consequences (see Nelson Motis v. Union of
India 1). Admittedly, the constitutionality of the Recruitment Rules are
not subject matter of challenge. In this backdrop, it is clear that no
fault can be found in the action of the official respondents in not
considering the petitioner and cancelling his provisional selection
because a higher grade SC candidate was available in Karimnagar
District. Merely, because only one candidate was available with higher
grade qualification in Karimnagar District, neither his selection nor his
appointment can be said to be invalid or unconstitutional. So far,
other grounds taken in the counter regarding the eligibility of the
petitioner in relation to lower grade examination is concerned, we are
not inclined to give any opinion on this aspect because the said aspect
was not the reason for rejecting the petitioner's provisional selection.
In view of Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi 2 ,
it is well established that validity of an order has to be tested on the
(1992) 4 SCC 711
(1978) 1 SCC 405
ground mentioned therein and it cannot be supported by furnishing
additional reasons in the counter affidavit.
11. In this view of the matter, the cancellation of provisional
appointment of the petitioner is inconsonance with the Recruitment
Rules and there is no question of cancelling the appointment of
unofficial respondent, who had the preferential right of selection, in
view of the Recruitment Rules.
12. Thus, the Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.
Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand
closed.
_____________
Sujoy Paul, J
_______________________________
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
22nd July, 2024
Myk/Tsr
