Telangana High Court
S. Vasundara vs The State Of Telangana on 24 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION (TR) NO.3853 OF 2017
ORDER
In this Writ Petition (TR), the petitioner is challenging the
proceedings of the 2nd respondent in CCLA's Ref.No.A2/1269/2013
dt.20.02.2014 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and is praying to
set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondents to consider
the claim of the petitioner for the post of Village Revenue Assistant as
she is the next meritorious candidate in S.C. category with all
consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition (TR) are
that the respondents have issued a Notification to fill up the posts of
Village Revenue Assistants. The petitioner belongs to S.C. Madiga
community and she participated in the written examination and secured
44 marks and stood at 27th rank in the combined merit list and second in
the S.C. category. It is submitted that the candidate who stood above the
petitioner in the S.C. category had obtained S.C. community certificate
fraudulently and was appointed to the post of Village Revenue
Assistant. On receipt of certain complaints against her, the matter was
enquired into and the competent authority has cancelled her appointment
on 11.05.2013. The petitioner on coming to know about the same, made
a representation on 24.06.2013 to the 3rd and 4th respondents to consider
her claim for appointment to the post of Village Revenue Assistant in
the said vacancy since she was a genuine S.C. candidate and was the
next meritorious candidate in the S.C. category. However, the 4th
respondent has sought clarification from the 3rd respondent on this issue
and the 3rd respondent sought clarification from the 2nd respondent and
the 2nd respondent by proceedings dt.20.02.2014, has rejected the claim
of the petitioner by holding that the said vacancy has to be notified in
the next recruitment. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed
O.A.No.3108 of 2015 and after abolition of the Tribunal, the matter has
been transferred to the High Court and numbered as W.P. (TR) No.3853
of 2017.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit supporting the
impugned order.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of The District
Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District Selection
Committee, Nizamabad and others Vs. B. Annapurna 1 in support of
his contention that where an appointment has been cancelled due to
bogus certificates being submitted by the candidate, such post will not
be called as a fall out vacancy and the same has to be considered for
appointment by next meritorious candidate. He also placed reliance
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of M. Raj Sekhar Vs. State
of Telangana and others 2, wherein while considering the decisions of
various High Courts and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has
culled out certain points for consideration as under:
"16. In matters of recruitment, preparation of merit list and
operation of the merit list, principles culled out from the above
decisions, are as under:
(1) Selection process culminates only when an order of
appointment is issued to a validly selected candidate;
(2) Once selection list is drawn and appointment orders are
issued to all the selected candidates and entire select list is
exhausted, question of operating waiting list to fill fallout
vacancy does not arise;
(3) A vacancy can be treated as fallout vacancy only when a
validly selected candidate receives appointment order, but
W.P.No.21306 of 2005 dt.04.09.2006
2021 (1) ALD 144 (TS)
does not join or joins but resigns to the post/relinquishes
the post;
(4) If no appointment order is issued against notified vacancy
to a candidate in the select list for any reason, including
not reporting for certificate verification, it does not amount
to exhausting the merit list and such vacancy is not a fallout
vacancy;
(5) Even when appointment orders are issued against all
vacancies, but on verification of certificates of eligibility
such as disability, educational qualification, social status
etc., if selection of a candidate is cancelled, the vacancy
cannot be treated as a fallout vacancy. In other words, but
for wrong declaration/claim, the candidate could not have
been included in the merit list and therefore the other
meritorious candidate who fits into particular
category/criteria, ignored earlier because of such wrong
declaration/claim, should not be deprived of his entitlement
for appointment.
(6) Merely because a candidate is included in the merit list no
indefeasible right would accrue to him to claim
appointment and it is for the employer to utilise the merit
list partially or fully. However, if the employer decides
against filling all or any of the vacancies notified, he has to
assign reasons in support of such decision."
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner
should be considered for appointment as Village Revenue Assistant.
5. Learned Government Pleader, while supporting the impugned
order, submitted that the Village Revenue Assistant posts have since
been abolished and therefore, it is not possible to accommodate the
petitioner even if the vacancy is not to be treated as a fall out vacancy
and further submitted that the post which has fallen vacant due to
cancellation of appointment of earlier candidate is to be considered as a
fallen vacancy and hence, the petitioner cannot be considered for the
said post. He submitted that even if the petitioner were to be considered
for appointment, she cannot be accommodated since the post for which
she has participated is no longer available as the said posts have since
been abolished.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in
making a representation immediately after cancellation of the
appointment of the selected candidate, i.e., Smt. V. Laxmi and also in
challenging the order of the 2nd respondent before the Court. Due to
lapse of time, the delay has occurred in disposal of the Writ Petition. In
the meantime, the posts of Village Revenue Assistants have been
abolished. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
The District Educational Officer & Member Convenor, District
Selection Committee, Nizamabad and others Vs. B. Annapurna (1
supra) and also the Single Judge of this Court in the case of M. Raj
Sekhar Vs. State of Telangana and others (2 supra) who have
considered all the legal precedents on the issue, the vacancy which has
arisen on cancellation of appointment order due to submission of invalid
certificates by the successful candidate, cannot be treated as a fall out
vacancy. Therefore, the petitioner is eligible to be considered against the
said vacancy being the next meritorious candidate in S.C. community.
Therefore, the petitioner should be considered for appointment and even
if the post of Village Revenue Assistant is now abolished, this Court
deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to consider the
appointment of the petitioner in any equivalent post of Village Revenue
Assistant, as after abolition of the posts of Village Revenue Assistants,
the existing Village Revenue Assistants have been accommodated in
various other departments and in various other posts. Therefore, the
petitioner shall also be considered for appointment in such other post
where the existing Village Revenue Assistants have been
accommodated.
7. With the above directions, the Writ Petition (TR) is disposed of.
No order as to costs.
8. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition (TR)
shall stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 24.07.2024
Svv
