Telangana High Court
S. Venugopal vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 25 October, 2024
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
+ W.P.No.23509 OF 2019
% 25 --10--2024
# S.Venugopal
...Petitioner
$ The State of Telangana and others.
... Respondents
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Putta Krishna Reddy
^Counsel for Respondents : Sri G.Vidya Sagar,
learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned
counsel
for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 496
2. (2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 30
3. (2021) 19 Supreme Court Cases 128
4. (2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 445
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
W.P.No.23509 OF 2019
Between:
S.Venugopal
...Petitioner
The State of Telangana and others. ...
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 25.10.2024
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
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.23509 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"......... to issue an order or direction more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus declaring Proceedings No.
W4/140(118)2018-T&W, dt.23.07.2019 issued
by the 3rd Respondent as illegal unjust,
unsustainable and set aside the same and
consequently direct the respondents to appoint
the petitioner to the post of Mechanical
Supervisor with effect from the date of initial
appointment".
2. Heard Sri Putta Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows :-
The Petitioner's father, late S.Veeraiah, died on
22.12.1993 due to a massive heart attack while performing
duty in the respondent Corporation. The Petitioner's father
left behind his mother, two un-married sisters and himself.
The petitioner was appointed as a Cleaner at BKP-depot,
vide Order No.P3/684(1)94, BKP, dated 03.06.1994, under
"Bread Winner Scheme" though his mother applied for her
son on 29.01.1994 for appointment as a Mechanical
Supervisor Trainee, being a Diploma Holder in Mechanical
Engineering. Subsequent to his appointment as a Cleaner
under "Bread Winner Scheme", two candidates, namely,
D.Sugunakar S/o. D.Sreemannarayana and V. Sreenivas
Rao, S/o.V.Ramachandra Rao, were appointed as
"Mechanical Supervisor Trainees" vide Office order No.
P5684(1)/95-HZ of ED/HZ, CBS, Hyderabad, dated
15.06.1995 under the same Scheme/compassionate
appointment. The petitioner represented the matter to the
respondents on 25.08.1996 for his appointment as
Mechanical Supervisor Trainee, on par with these two
candidates, but they did not respond.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though the petitioner submitted repeated representations
to the respondents highlighting the discrimination meted
out to him in respect of his appointment as a Cleaner and
appointment of two candidates as Mechanical Supervisor
Trainees, as the petitioner also stands on the same footing
and holding equal qualification in Diploma in
Mechanical/Automobile Engineering, he had been denied
for appointment as a Mechanical Supervisor Trainee. The
petitioner was the first candidate to apply for the said
post, but he was not offered it. In contrast, the above
mentioned two candidates, who applied at a later stage,
were appointed as Mechanical Supervisor Trainees,
exempting them from written test and interview. The 2nd
Respondent herein, having considered the petitioner's
grievance, directed the then Divisional Manager to send his
particulars for verification and to do justice to him through
proceedings dated 10.12.1997, but there was no further
progress in the matter.
5. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for the
petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the
proceedings dated 10.12.1997, issued by the Regional
Manager, Hyderabad City Region, Hyderabad to the
Divisional Manager, Charminar Division, Koti Terminus,
Hyderabad, wherein it is stated as follows :-
"Sri S. Venugopal, E-206189, Cleaner of
Barkatpura Depot represented to V.C. & M.D. to
consider him for the post of Mechanical Supervisor
on par with the other candidates who were
considered for the post of Mechanical Supervisor
under Bread winner scheme whereas he was
considered to the post of Cleaner.
The said representation was forwarded to the
Chief Manager (HRD) and is under the examination.
In this connection, the Chief Manager (HRD) vide
letter cited requested to arrange to send the
following relevant cases for further course of action,
while marking a copy to you.
1. P3/331(4)/93-DVM:CR
2. P3/684(1)/94-BKP
Hence, you are requested to arrange to send
the case bearing No.P3/331(4)/93-DVM:CR, pertains
to you to this office for verification and onward
transmission to Chief Manager (WRD).
Please treat the matter as most urgent."
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits
that as no action has been taken pursuant to the said
proceedings dated 10.12.1997, the petitioner was
constrained to file W.P.No.31378 of 2010 and the same was
disposed of vide order dated 26.10.2018 by this Court
observing as follows :-
"Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that though the petitioner is
eligible for the post of Mechanical Supervisor, he
was appointed as Cleaner under the Bread
Winner Scheme; and that he submitted a
representation on 30.01.2010; but, so far, no
action has been taken thereon.
Having regard to the said submission,
ends of justice would be met if a direction is
given to the respondent-Corporation to consider
the representation of the petitioner
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed
of directing the respondent-Corporation to
consider the representation dated 30.01.2010 of
the petitioner and pass appropriate orders
thereon within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7. In compliance with the above said order, the 3rd
respondent issued proceedings dated 23.07.2019 stating as
follows :-
"The father of Sri. S.Venugopal, the petitioner,
died due to heart attack. The dependants of all
the employees who died while in service are
provided compassionate appointments in the
posts of Driver, conductor, shramik (Cleaner) and
RTC Constable. More than 3000 candidates have
been provided compassionate appointments.
Sri.S.Venugopal is relying only on two cases
where special consideration was given in view of
the extra ordinary circumstances prevailing in
those cases. Infact 10% of the vacancies of
Mechanical Supervisors are reserved for the
inservice employees of the Corporation. Sri.
S.Venugopal should have availed the opportunity
provided as inservice employee and should have
appeared for the competitive examination
conducted for the post of Mechanical
Supervisors, so as to get appointed in the said
post. He is not entitled to claim compassionate
appointment in the post of Mechanical
Supervisor, when that post is not notified under
the Scheme."
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the petitioner was duly qualified to be
appointed as a Mechanical Supervisor. His case ought to
have been considered on par with the above two employees
without showing any discrimination.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the father of the petitioner also died while in
service as to that of the death of the fathers of the above
said two employees. Nothing is stated in the impugned
proceedings regarding the nature of differentiation between
the petitioner and the other two employees proving that the
petitioner has been discriminated. The respondent
authorities refused to consider the case of the petitioner for
the post of Mechanical Supervisor is highly illegal and
arbitrary.
10. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned
proceedings dated 23.07.2019 and direct the respondents
to appoint the petitioner as a Mechanical Supervisor with
effect from the date of his initial appointment as a Cleaner.
11. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed counter affidavit
stating that the petitioner having accepted the employment
in 1994 did not raise any objection till 1997. The
Petitioner, having waited for another thirteen years, filed
W.P.No.31378/2010, stating that the respondents did not
consider his case for appointment as a Mechanical
Supervisor. As on the date of petitioner's appointment, the
only posts which were available under the Bread Winner
Scheme were Conductor, Driver and Sharmik (Cleaner).
This Court, vide its order dated 26.10.2018 in
W.P.No.31378 of 2010, directed the Corporation to
consider and pass orders on the petitioner's
representation. The 3rd respondent vide impugned
proceedings dated 23.07.2019 informed the petitioner that
they could not consider his case as the petitioner was
appointed as per the Scheme in 1994. The 3rd respondent
also considered the cases of two other persons. One Sri
D.Sugunakar is the son of one Sri D.Sreemannarayana,
who worked as Depot Manager and Sri
D.Sreemannarayana was working as Depot Manager,
Guntur-Il Depot, at the time of his death. In the year 1981,
while Sri D.Sreemannarayana was discharging his duties
in his Office, an employee aggrieved by the disciplinary
action taken by the Depot Manager attacked him with a
knife and stabbed him to death. Thus, the Depot Manager
had to meet with an unnatural death because of
discharging his duties and he was stabbed to death in his
office.
12. In view of the extra ordinary circumstances which led
to the death of Sri D.Sreemannarayana, the Corporation
took a decision to provide compassionate appointment to
Sri D.Sugunakar in the post of Mechanical Supervisor, as a
special case. Similarly, Sri V.Sreenivasa Rao is the son of
Sri V.Ramachandra Rao who worked as Depot Manager.
When Sri V.Ramachandra Rao was working as Depot
Manager, Badrachalam, he met with an accident on
11.01.1992. While he was going in the official jeep as a
part of discharging his duties, one lorry came in the wrong
direction and hit the jeep. Sri V.Ramachandra Rao suffered
grevious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on
29.01.1992. In the year 1992, Smt.V. Kusuma Kumari,
W/o Late V.Ramachandra Rao, represented to VC&MD for
the appointment of her son, Sri V.Sreenivasa Rao, LME to
the post of Mechanical Supervisor Apprentice. Since his
father suffered an untimely death while discharging official
duties, Sri V.Sreenivasa Rao was appointed as Mechanical
Supervisor Trainee as a special case. The 3rd Respondent
has given detailed reasons for the same vide proceedings
dated 23.07.2019. The appointment on compassionate
grounds under the breadwinner scheme cannot be a right
by itself. The Petitioner having accepted it in the year 1994
cannot agitate the same after three years of his
appointment.
13. In support of his contentions, Sri G.Vidya Sagar,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. AMIT SHRIVAS 1,
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs.
PREMLATA 2 and RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA
RAJYAGURU Vs. GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY AND
SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS 3.
14. This Court raised a question with regard to the
consideration of appointments made under the bread
winner scheme/compassionate appointment for the above
referred two candidates under the special category. For
that, the learned Senior Counsel did not assign any reason
and in their counter also stated under special category, as
a special case, they considered, but did not explain as to
what is the special category or special case.
15. Learned Senior Counsel appearing the respondents
submits that already the petitioner was in employment and
he had no right to seek other employment while doing so.
(2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 496
(2022) 1 Supreme Court Cases 30
(2021) 19 Supreme Court Cases 128
At the time of appointment of the petitioner, there is no
such post of Mechanical Supervisor Trainee under the
Bread Winner Scheme.
16. In W.P.No.31378 of 2010, the respondents have filed
a counter stating that the contention of the petitioner that
he applied for appointment to the post of Mechanical
Supervisor Trainee was not correct and he applied for
appointment in APSRTC under the 'bread winner scheme'
as cleaner only. A perusal of the proceedings dated
10.12.1997 makes it clear that the petitioner had made
representation to VC & MD, and it is an internal
communication of the respondent Corporation to
coordinate with the file of the petitioner pertaining to the
representation. The petitioner wrongly projected in the writ
petition that his case was considered by the 2nd
respondent.
17. Whether it may be an internal correspondence, but in
the said proceedings, the respondent authorities directed
the concerned authority to treat the matter as most urgent
even though the respondents did not take any action till
the filing of W.P.No.31378 of 2010 and the same
authorities also filed counter in the present writ petition
stating that appointment on compassionate grounds
under the bread winner scheme, cannot be a right by itself
and also as on the date of petitioner's appointment, the
only posts which were available under the Bread Winner
Scheme were Conductor, Driver and Sharmik (Cleaner).
This Court, vide its order dated 26.10.2018 in
W.P.No.31378 of 2010, directed the respondent
Corporation to consider the petitioner's representation and
pass appropriate orders.
18. So, the contradictory statements were given by the
authorities in their own counters on two occasions.
Moreover, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the
notice of this Court that the mother of the petitioner made
a representation on 29.01.1994 requesting to provide
suitable employment to her son in place of her deceased
husband, who died on 22.12.1993 while performing duty.
19. In the said representation dated 29.01.1994, it is
stated as follows :-
"Even there is a Regulation in the Corporation that
R.T.C. employees after having completed 25 years of
service are allowed to get their sons/legal heirs
appointed in various categories under 30% quota
reserved for such employees.
(i) In view of the above circumstances I request the
V.C Managing Director to appoint my son S.Venugopal
as Mechanical Supervisor (Trainee) at the earliest as I
have no other means of livelihood."
20. In Circular No.PD-17/2017, dated 27.07.2017, the
Managing Director of Telangana State Road Transport
Corporation made amendments to existing guidelines.
Rule 5(c) reads as follows :-
"c. To be eligible for consideration for
employment, the applicant should have acquired the
requisite age, Educational and other qualifications
specified in the TSRTC Recruitment Regulations
within 10 years from the date of death of the
employee. The applicants who do not fulfill the
requisite qualifications should be informed
immediately about the reasons for non selections."
21. After receiving the representation dated 29.01.1994,
the authorities would have informed his mother or atleast
the petitioner with regard to the rejection or accepting the
request made by them. But, it was not done by the
respondent authorities and also the respondent authorities
neither accepted his application nor rejected the
application. There is no such information from the
respondent authorities.
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in RAJESH
PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU (3 supra). In the said
case, the issue pertains to daily wage employees of the
respondent Board as to whether they are entitled to
benefits flowing from the State Government Resolutions.
The necessity of adoption thereof by the autonomous body
concerned. In that daily-wage employees cannot claim
parity with employees of the State Government since the
respondent Board is an autonomous statutory body
created under an Act and is required to make conscious
policy decisions on pay scales to be adopted and/or certain
benefits which have financial implications and which
depends upon economic viability or financial capacity.
23. In the above case, the Apex Court observed as
follows :-
"..... Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept
of positive equality alone and not negative equality.
It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and
irregularity.....".
"..... As held by this Court in RAJKUMAR SHARMA
in a case of appointments or pay scales, Article 14
of the Constitution does not envisage negative
equality and if State has committed the mistake, it
cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake."
24. In the case on hand, the petitioner is not a daily wage
employee and the respondents have shown discrimination
between the above said two employees and the petitioner
though all the three persons come under the "bread winner
scheme". Once the said employees come under the bread
winner scheme, there should not be any discrimination.
Therefore, the aforesaid case cannot be made applicable to
the case on hand.
25. In State of Madhya Pradesh (1 supra), the Apex
Court held as follows :-
"....... If some persons are given the benefit
wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the
same relief. It is trite that right to equality under
Article 14 is not in the negative terms...."
The respondent raises a claim of entitlement to
compassionate appointment on account of the demise
of his father late Shri Ranglal Shrivas, who was
working as a Driver in the Tribal Welfare Department,
Bhind, Madhya Pradesh, since 6.6.1984 till he
passed away on 11.12.2009, i.e., over a period of
almost 23 years.
We, however, are of the view that we can provide
some succor to the respondent in view of the Circular
dated 21.3.2017, the relevant portion of which reads
as under:
"2. In this regard, it is clarified that the
compassionate appointment for the employees of
Workcharge and Contingency Fund is in force also
w.e.f. 31.08.2016. And the cases pending before this
date, will be decided only in accordance with the
directions issued for compassionate appointment on
29.09.2014, i.e., they will be eligible only for
compassionate grant and not the compassionate
appointment. The proceedings be ensured
accordingly."
27. The aforesaid Circular records that pending cases
will be decided in accordance with the directions
issued for compassionate appointment on 29.9.2014.
The present case is really not a pending case before
the authority, but a pending lis before this Court.
28. We are, thus, of the view that it would be
appropriate to use our powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India to do complete justice between
the parties by increasing the amount from Rs.
1,00,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- as aforesaid. We, in fact,
adopted a similar approach in Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited & Ors. v. Nirval Singh.5
29. It appears from the documents on record that
possibly a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deposited by
the respondent with the State Bank of India in an
interest-bearing deposit in 2016, and the amount
would possibly be lying in the same deposit. This
would have been pursuant to the impugned order.
We, thus, direct that this FDR be released to the
respondent and that this amount, along with interest
which would accrue to the benefit of the respondent,
apart from the additional amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-,
we have found as payable to the respondent which
should be so paid within a period of two (2) months
from today, failing which it will carry interest @ 12
per cent per annum (simple interest) till the date 5
(2019) 6 SCC 774 of payment.
30. The appeal is accordingly allowed leaving the
parties to bear their own costs."
26. In the above case, the petitioner therein approached
the Department for compassionate appointment after a
lapse of almost 23 years. But, in the present case, the
petitioner approached the authorities in time and there
was no delay in approaching the authorities for seeking
suitable employment under the bread winner scheme,
which was discriminated by the authorities. Though all
the three employees are having equal qualification, the
petitioner was appointed in the post of Cleaner, whereas
the other two persons were appointed as Mechanical
Supervisors without any test, which is nothing but illegal
and arbitrary. Therefore, the above said case does not
apply to the case on hand.
27. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2 supra), the Apex
Court held as follows :-
"26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra
[Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra,
(2008) 11 SCC 384 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has
adopted the principle that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment,
but a means to enable the family of the deceased to
get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial
position of the family would need to be evaluated on
the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme.
The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind
Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC
(L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court
observed that it did not appear that the earlier
binding precedents of this Court have been taken note
of in that case."
10. Thus as per the law laid down by this court in the
aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the
public services and is in favour of the dependents of a
deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of livelihood, and in
such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family would not
be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made
in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of
the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible
for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not
to give such family a post much less a post held by
the deceased."
28. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking higher
post having requisite qualification acquired by him, but the
respondents have not discussed the said aspect in both the
counters filed in the earlier writ petition as well as in the
present writ petition.
29. With regard to the discrimination, the Apex Court in
SURYA KANT KADAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS 4, held as follows :-
A. Service Law - Appointment - Compassionate
appointment - Discrimination in - Directions issued for
treating the appellant in the same manner as two
later appointees had been treated - Constitution of
India - Art. 14 Classification/ Under
classification/Discrimination - Non-consideration of
senior's care while promoting/appointing his junior to
a higher post
B. Service Law - Appointment Compassionate
appointment - Held (obiter), administrative
instructions on compassionate appointment not
enforceable in a court of law - Administrative
instructions Enforceability.
The appellant was appointed as Second Division
Assistant/Clerk on compassionate grounds. His
grievance was that two persons (Respondents 3 and
4) who were appointed as Second Division
Assistant/Clerk on compassionate grounds later than
him, were subsequently promoted/appointed as Sub
Inspectors though he was equally qualified for this
post at the time of his initial appointment, and
therefore he was discriminated.
Accepting his contention, the Supreme Court Held:
It is true that the appointment on compassionate
grounds in the State of karnataka is not governed by
any statutory rules but by a set of administrative
instructions and as such is not enforceable in a court
of law. But the grounds on which the appellant makes
out the case for consideration of his case, is the
(2002) 9 Supreme Court Cases 445
violation of Article 14 and discriminatory treatment
meted out to the appellant. It is undisputed that the
date on which the appellant was given
compassionate appointment as Second Division
Assistant/Clerk he had the necessary qualification
for being appointed as Sub-Inspector of Excise. It is
also undisputed that Respondents 3 and 4 were given
appointment initially as Second Division
Assistant/Clerk but later than the appellant. When
the state, therefore, thought it fit to change the post of
Respondents 3 and 4 and appointed them to the post
of Sub-Inspector of Excise, unless there is any
justifiable reason existing, there is no reason as to
why the appellant should be treated with hostile
discrimination. In the aforesaid circumstances, we set
aside the impugned order of the tribunal rejecting the
prayer of the appellant for being considered for the
post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and we direct that the
State Government may consider the case of
appointment of the appellant as Sub Inspector of
Excise. Be it stated in the event he is appointed it
would be prospective and he will not be entitled to
any retrospective benefit.
30. In the present case also, though all the three persons
are having equal qualification, while two persons referred
above were appointed in the post of Mechanical Supervisor
without any test, the case of the petitioner was not
considered for the said post and appointed as Cleaner and
as stated by the respondent's counsel that Article 14
cannot be taken in negative terms. Further, in State of
Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Amit Shrivas, the Apex
Court held as follows :-
"....... If some persons are given the benefit
wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the
same relief. It is trite that right to equality under
Article 14 is not in the negative terms...."
31. In the instant case, the petitioner's stand is that two
persons were appointed as Mechanical Supervisors, and
the same benefit was not extended to him. It is to be
noted that the respondents have not disputed about the
appointment of said two persons as Mechanical
Supervisors. But, the said benefit was not extended to the
petitioner. However, there are circumstances where
differential treatment is permissible, provided the
classification is reasonable and serves legitimate objective.
For instance, appointments made on special grounds, such
as for specific quotas or affirmative action programs, can
justify differential treatment. In these cases, the
Department must demonstrate the special grounds for the
action taken. If the Government or a Department fails to
justify these special grounds and an employee is
discriminated against without valid reason, the unequal
treatment could be challenged and Article 14 would come
into play to ensure equality.
32. Under the impugned order, the respondent
authorities stated that two cases were considered under
the extra ordinary circumstances. In fact 10% of the
vacancies of Mechanical Supervisors are reserved for the
inservice employees of the Corporation. The petitioner
should have availed the opportunity provided as inservice
employee and should have appeared for the competitive
examination conducted for the post of Mechanical
Supervisors, so as to get appointed in the said post. The
petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate
appointment in the post of Mechanical Supervisor, when
that post is not notified under the Scheme. If it is correct,
how the cases of aforesaid persons were considered for the
same post i.e., Mechanical Supervisors, which were not
notified under the Scheme. In respect of the petitioner's
case, the respondents stated that the petitioner ought to
have availed the opportunity provided as inservice
employee and ought to have appeared for the competitive
examination conducted for the post of Mechanical
Supervisors, so as to enable him to appoint in the said
post. It goes to show that the aforesaid two candidates
were appointed as Mechanical Supervisors on
compassionate ground without there being any condition
for appearing competitive examination for the said post.
But, in respect of the petitioner's case, the respondents
are contending that the petitioner should have appeared
for the competitive examination conducted for the post of
Mechanical Supervisor. It clearly shows that the
discrimination exercised by the respondents in respect of
the petitioner. Moreover, from the beginning the petitioner
is seeking appointment for the post of Mechanical
Supervisor. The respondents have given contradictory
statements under the impugned order.
33. From the above mentioned contentions of the learned
counsel for the respondents, it is clear that the
respondents are stating that the appointment of those two
employees was made on special circumstances, but the
respondents have not explained what are the special
circumstances. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
view that the respondents ought to have appointed the
petitioner as Mechanical Supervisor. As such, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside.
34. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed by setting
aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2019. The
respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner as
Mechanical Supervisor from the date of his appointment as
Cleaner, but he will not be entitled to any retrospective
benefits. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are
pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
25.10.2024
Note:-
L.R.Copy to be marked
(B/o)
Prv
