Telangana High Court

Porika Sucharitha D/O Rathan Singh, vs The Vice Chairman And Managing ... on 23 July, 2024

Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka

Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka

  IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
                     HYDERABAD

                          ****
             WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2013

Between:

Porika Sucharitha
                                                 ... Petitioner
      AND
The Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
Andhra Pradesh Industries Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.
and others
                                               ... Respondents


DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 23.07.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

      HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

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


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


3. Whether His Lordship wish to
  see the fair copy of the Judgment?                 yes




                                   ___________________________
                                   NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
                                2




      * HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

               WRIT PETITION NO. 229 OF 2012


% 23.07.2024

Between:

Porika Sucharitha
                                                  ... Petitioner
      AND
The Vice Chairman and Managing Director,
Andhra Pradesh Industries Infrastructure Corporation Ltd.
and others
                                               ... Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner           : Ms. Porika Chandana

^ Counsel for 7th respondent       : Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy




Cases cited:

(2017) 4 SCC 797
                                   3




       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

             WRIT PETITION No. 229 OF 2013

ORDER:

Respondents 1 to 4 - Andhra Pradesh Industrial

Infrastructure Corporation Limited appointed Respondents 5

and 6 as Managers (Electrical) and (Engineering) without

considering the candidature of petitioner, vide proceedings

dated 23.05.2012. Seeking a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 to

set aside the said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.

2. Petitioner claims to have possessed B.Tech

(Electrical and Electronic Engineering) in 2007 with 60.67%.

Her case is that she has to be selected to the Post of Manager

reserved for ST Women as the originally-selected person viz.

Suseela did not turn up to join in the post and she being the

next candidate in the waiting list, however, Respondents 5 and

6 were appointed as Manager (Electrical). Petitioner therefore,

filed Writ Petition No. 8808 of 2012, wherein this Court passed

the order dated 29.03.2012 directing the respondents to consider

the case of petitioner for appointment to the post of Manager

(Electrical) reserved for ST women if her name is at serial No.1 in

the waiting list, within a period of six weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. However, the respondent did not

implement the said order which prompted her to file Contempt

Case No. 725 of 2012. The Contempt Case was closed leaving

liberty to petitioner to challenge the order passed by the

Respondent, if she is aggrieved by the same.

It is also stated that the official respondents

rejected the claim of petitioner vide letter dated 23.05.2012 on

the sole ground that she is not eligible for appointment to the

post of Managing (Electrical) as per G.O. Ms.No. 544, dated

04.12.1998. According to petitioner, the said G.O. was issued in

1998 but Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed in 2010 and the

official respondents admitted in Para 5 of the counter filed in

Contempt Case that the contention raised by petitioner in Para

11 of her affidavit that one B. Madhu, who is the 1st candidate

in the waiting list was appointed in the place of Venugopal in SC

Category and one Sri M. Dora Babu who was kept in waiting list

was appointed in OC category is true, but it related to earlier

recruitment of 2008 wherein the waiting list was prepared for

the recruitment. The G.O. was issued in 1998 but the above

persons were appointed against G.O.Ms No. 544, dated

04.12.1998. Petitioner's case was not considered only on the

sole ground that she is not eligible as per GO Ms.No. 544.

Petitioner contends that appointment of

Respondents 5 and 6 is illegal and against the principles of

natural justice and G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 and her

case was not considered though the post was reserved for ST

(Women). It is stated that both the Central Government and

State Government provide special rule of reservation in favour of

SCs., STs. for upliftment of downtrodden and since the subject

post was reserved for Scheduled Tribe (women), not filling up

the post with woman is illegal, arbitrary and against the

principles of natural Justice. Hence, the Writ Petition.

3. Petitioner had taken out I.A.No. 3 of 2015 seeking

amendment of prayer. By order dated 03.04.2024, the said

Application was ordered directing amendment of prayer to the

effect that 'rejecting the claim of petitioner vide Lr.No.

53719/PW/APIIC/2010, dated 23.05.2012 as being arbitrary,

illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21

and consequently, direct the respondents 1 to 4 to appoint

petitioner to the post of Manager (Electrical) in the respondent

Corporation'.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Andhra

Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited by its

General Manager, it is stated that Smt. N. Susheela, who was

provisionally selected for the post of Manager (Electrical) under

ST (women) category did not join duty, hence, petitioner made

Application dated 15.06.2011 seeking appointment as such. It

is stated that in the present recruitment, pursuant to the

notification and interview, no waiting list of the candidates

selected has been prepared by the APIIC, since it is observed

that there is a clear bar as per G.O.Ms.No.544, dated

04.12.1998 according to which, maintenance and operation of

waiting list for the recruitment has been dispensed with in any

recruitment including those meant for reserved

community/category notified by the Unit Officers and the fall

out vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non-joining

etc., of selected candidates has to be notified in the next

recruitment.

It is stated that the Application dated 15.06.2011 of

petitioner was also placed before the Board of APIIC held on

dated 09.08.2011 and Board also directed to conduct fresh

recruitment as per G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 only. It is

also clarified that the appointment of the 6th respondent was not

in the same recruitment, but it related to earlier recruitment of

2008, when the waiting list was prepared for that recruitment.

5. The 7th respondent Telangana State Industrial

Infrastructure Corporation was impleaded as per order dated

19.04.2022 in I.A.No. 2 of 2015. The Chief General Manager

(AM) (Legal) filed the counter-affidavit stating that after

bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh and formation of new

State of Telangana and consequent bifurcation of the

Corporation, they were impleaded as party respondent. It is

stated that representation dated 12.04.2012 of petitioner was

considered and through letter dated 23.05.2012, it was

informed, since there was no waiting list prepared for the

relevant recruitment year in view of G.O.Ms. No. 544 dated

04.12.1998, question of petitioner's name being at serial

number 1 of the waiting list does not arise, as such, her request

could not be considered; the Corporation categorically

mentioned that selected candidate N. Susheela was issued offer

letter under ST women category, however she did not join duty.

It was also clarified in the said letter that appointment of

Respondents 5 and 6 relate to earlier recruitment years, where

waiting list was prepared by the Corporation. She was further

informed that the said vacancy would be notified in the next

recruitment year as per the aforesaid G.O. The allegation that

petitioner's case was not considered to the post of ST-women

and Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed in an arbitrary

manner is denied.

It is stated further that in view of the bar specified

under the above said GOMs. No 544, no waiting lists were

prepared for the recruitment in the year 2010. Therefore, the

allegation that the name of the petitioner was at Sl. No. 1 of the

waiting list is totally incorrect. It is stated that based on the

selection, appointment letters were issued to all the selected

candidates including Susheela under ST category for the post of

Manager (Electrical) with the approval of the competent

authority dated 18.02.2011. However the selected candidate

Susheela under ST category as Manager (Electrical) chosen not

to join in the said post. As the entire original files relating to the

said recruitments for the years 2008, 2009 & 2010 are in the

custody of APIIC at Mangalgiri. In spite of repeated requests

made by the TSIIC for the original file including appointment

order of said Susheela the APIIC is not responding. It is stated

that petitioner's Application for appointment was also placed

before the Board of APIIC held on 09.08.2009, the Board

directed to conduct fresh recruitment only as per GOMs No.

544. In 2008 and 2009, the Corporation prepared waiting list of

the candidates; in 2008, the selected candidate Venugopal

under SC Engineering (Civil) Category has not joined therefore

the waiting list candidate at serial number 1-8 Madhu (R6) was

appointed as Manager-Engineering (Civil) under SC category.

Similarly, in 2009, as the selected candidate under general

category has not joined, therefore waiting list candidate at serial

number 1, M. Dorababu (R5) was appointed as Manager-

electrical under general category.

As per Section 53 of the AP Reorganization Act,

2014 assets and liabilities of the then APIIC were apportioned

between APIIC and TSIIC based upon the population ratio ie.

58.32% to APIIC and 41.68% to TSIIC. Similarly on the said

ratio, employees were also allocated; the 5th respondent was

allotted to the then APIIC and the 6th respondent to TSIIC. There

was no recruitment after bifurcation in the TSIIC. The claim of

petitioner to the post of Manager (Electrical) under ST quota for

2010 by comparing to the previous years of recruitments i.e.

2008 & 2009 for different categories are totally misconceived,

The candidates referred to by petitioner also belong to different

categories namely SC and General, whereas petitioner under ST

category. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above,

there was no waiting list prepared by the Corporation for any

category of the posts in 2010, thus the claim of petitioner as

waiting list candidate under ST category is untenable and the

writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner Ms. Porika Chandana

submits that as per provisos of Section 104 of A.P.

Reorganization Act, 2014 this Court has got jurisdiction to

entertain the Writ Petition. According to learned counsel,

appointments were issued to Respondents 5 and 6 under an

earlier notification though waiting list was done away with, that

the vacancy in the post of Manager (Electrical) remained un-

filled and that petitioner is the next candidate in merit to be

appointed. According to learned counsel, the subject issue is

covered by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Munja

Praveen v. State of Telangana 1.

7. Heard Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for the 7th respondent.

8. Having heard learned counsel on either side, the

crisp case of petitioner is that the official respondents rejected

her claim vide letter dated 23.05.2012 on the sole ground that

she is not eligible for appointment to the post of Manager

(Electrical) as per G.O. Ms.No. 544, dated 04.12.1998.

According to petitioner, the said G.O. was issued in 1998 but

Respondents 5 and 6 were appointed in 2010 under an earlier

notification though waiting list was done away with and official

respondents admitted in Para 5 of the counter filed in Contempt

Case that the contention raised by petitioner in Para 11 of her

affidavit that one B. Madhu, who is the 1st candidate in the

(2017) 4-SCC-797

waiting list was appointed in the place of Venugopal in SC

Category and one Sri M. Dora Babu who was kept in waiting list

was appointed in OC category is true, but it related to earlier

recruitment of 2008 where waiting list was prepared. The G.O.

was issued in 1998 but the above persons were appointed

against G.O.Ms No. 544, dated 04.12.1998. Petitioner's case

was not considered only on the sole ground that she is not

eligible as per GO Ms.No. 544. It is stated that representation

dated 12.04.2012 of petitioner was considered and through

letter dated 23.05.2012, it was informed, since there was no

waiting list prepared for relevant recruitment year in view of

G.O.Ms. No. 544, dated 04.12.1998, question of petitioner's

name being at serial number 1 of the waiting list does not arise.

As stated above, the Corporation through the letter above,

categorically mentioned that the selected candidate N. Susheela

was issued offer letter under ST women category, however she

did not join duty. It was also clarified that appointment of B.

Madhu is relating to the earlier recruitment year of 2008, in

which year waiting list was prepared by the Corporation. She

was further informed that the said vacancy would be notified in

the next recruitment year as per the aforesaid G.O.

9. At this juncture, it is pertinent to go through the

G.O., on which reliance has been placed by the respondent

Corporation. It reads as under:

" Notwithstanding anything contained in the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules / Special Rules or ad hoc Rules governing maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the District recruitments for the posts under the State and Subordinate Services and Last Grade Services that are being taken up by various recruiting agencies and also through Employment Exchange, the maintenance and operation of waiting list for all the recruitments shall be dispensed with and the list of candidates approved / selected in any recruitment by any recruiting agency in the State in any department for such posts shall be equal to the number of vacancies notified for that recruitment only including those meant for reserved community / category notified by the unit officers. The fallout vacancies, if any due to relinquishment and non-joining etc. of selected candidates shall be notified in the next recruitment.'

10. A perusal of the G.O. makes it clear that

maintenance and operation of waiting list for recruitment has

been dispensed with in any recruitment including those meant

for reserved community/category notified by the Unit Officers

and the fall out vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and

non-joining etc., of selected candidates has to be notified in the

next recruitment. Pursuant to the said G.O., it is stated, the

Corporation rejected the case of petitioner vide letter dated

23.05.2012. Here, it is to be noted that G.O. was issued in

1998. When it is the case of the respondent Corporation in

respect of petitioner for the recruitment that took place in 2010,

why they have not implemented the said G.O. in respect of

Respondents 5 and 6, though they claim that recruitment is of

2008 and 2009, is not known and there is no explanation

forthcoming in that direction. Further, the Corporation stated

that waiting list was prepared for recruitment 2008 and 2009,

hence, their cases were considered, whereas waiting list was not

prepared for 2010 and the question of considering the

petitioner's name being at Sl.No.1 does not arise. It is stated

that the Application dated 15.06.2011 of petitioner was also

placed before the Board of APIIC held on dated 09.08.2011 and

Board directed to conduct fresh recruitment as per

G.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 only.

11. In this regard, a look at the above-referred

judgment makes it evident that the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

while dealing with similar circumstances, had categorically held

that in the absence of offer of appointment to the successful

candidate, claim of the next meritorious candidate shall be

considered. The Supreme Court had interpreted the G.O. in

such a way that 'the portion of the G.O.Ms. quoted above clearly

lays down that there shall be no waiting list and the selection

shall be made equal to the number of posts notified. The purpose

was that the vacancies arising due to people leaving the posts

must be filled up by subsequent selection and not on the basis of

a waiting list. It was clarified that after selection of the

candidates and after issue of appointment orders, if the

candidate fails to join within the stipulated period, that vacancy

should be notified again. This portion of the G.O.Ms. admits of

only one interpretation that after appointment order is issued and

the person appointed does not join, then the vacancy cannot be

filled up on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit

list downwards. This is also clear from clause 9 of the G.O.Ms.

which also clarifies that fall out vacancies due to relinquishment

or non-joining of the selected candidates may be notified in the

next recruitment. This obviously means that the clause will apply

after issue of letter of appointment. There can be no

relinquishment and non-joining unless an appointment letter is

issued.' On a careful reading of the G.O., this Court is of the

view that the G.O. would come into operation only after

appointment letters were issued. Further, the Division Bench

of this Court in Government of A.P. v. Ms. Bhagam

Dorasanamma (Writ Petition No. 24944 of 2013) had correctly

interpreted the G.O. in the following manner:

" The process of recruitment starts from the date of notifying the vacancies and attains finality with the act of issuing appointment order, offering the post to the selected candidate. In the absence of reaching the said finality of issuing appointment order in respect of subject vacancy, the question of either relinquishment or non-filing of the same does not arise. The interpretation sought to be given by the authorities for denying appointment to the applicant / 1st respondent herein is contrary to the very spirit and object of service jurisprudence and we find total lack of justification on the part of the petitioner authorities and such action undoubtedly tantamounts to transgression of Part III of the Constitution of India in the event of testing the same on the touchstone of Article 16 of the Constitution of India."

12. In the case on hand, though it is stated in the

impugned order that offer of appointment was issued to the

successful candidate, no such proceeding was filed before this

Court. Along with the counter-affidavit, the 7th respondent

annexed copy of relevant extract of note file dated 18.02.2011,

wherein it has been noted that 'we have to issue offer of

appointment to the selected candidates. Draft offer of

appointment along with enclosures is put up. Draft offer of

appointment may be approved.' In view of the above settled legal

position, the plea that the practice of keeping waiting list has

been done away may not be sustainable. Therefore, the

contention of Respondents 1 to 4 to the contrary would become