Telangana High Court
Mudupu Malla Reddy, vs Secy., Ts Psc, Hyd. And Ano. on 27 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.1777 OF 2017
ORDER :
This writ petition is filed declaring the action of the
respondents in not considering the petitioner's candidature for
selection to the post of Assistant Engineer in Public Health &
Municipal Engineering Department vide notification No.9/2015
dated 29.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent in the City Cadre
though he got more marks than the last selected candidate in OC
category with all consequential benefits, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri
M.Ramgopal Rao, learned standing counsel for TSPSC appearing
for respondent no.1, Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for
respondent no.3, and Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for
respondent no.4.
3. Brief facts that lead to filing of the present writ petition are
that 1st respondent issued Notification No.09/2015, dated
29.08.2015 calling applications for recruitment to the post of
Assistant Engineers in various Engineering Subordinate Services,
LNA,J
Municipal Assistant Engineer and Technical Officers in Public
Health and Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service in the
State of Telangana including 258 posts of Assistant Engineers
(Civil or Mechanical) in Public Health and Municipal Engineering
Department. Out of 258 posts, 144 posts were earmarked for the
City Cadre, which includes 45 posts for OC General Category.
3.1. Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil
or Mechanical) in Public Health & Municipal Engineering
Department and appeared for written examination conducted on
07.11.2015 with Hall Ticket No.9150123810. Respondent no.1
issued result notifications on 18.01.2016, 22.03.2016, 21.04.2016
and 23.04.2016 for certificate verification and consequently, list of
provisionally selected candidates was published on 09.05.2016.
Thereafter, complete details of selected candidates were placed
on website, however, petitioner's name was not figured in the
said list. On verification, petitioner found that the candidate, who
got 186 marks, was selected in City Cadre zone, who is less
meritorious than the petitioner and was placed at Sl.No.60.
Petitioner submitted representation on 29.09.2016 to the 1st
LNA,J
respondent to furnish details of marks obtained by him and the
same was provided on 27.12.2016, as per which, petitioner got 188
marks. Petitioner submitted another representation on 07.01.2017
to consider his case for selection to the post since the candidate
who got lesser marks i.e., 186 marks than the petitioner under OC
category was selected, however, there is no response from the 1st
respondent-office. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the
present writ petition.
4. Counter on behalf of 1st respondent is filed, inter alia,
contending that Notification No.09/2015 dated 29.08.2015 was
issued notifying total number of 1058 vacancies, out of which, 258
vacancies of Assistant Engineers, 54 vacancies of Technical
Officers belong to Public Health & Municipal Engineering
Subordinate Services Department and 26 vacancies of Assistant
Engineers in I & CAD Department. Petitioner applied for the post
of Assistant Engineer with H.T.No.9150123810 and after written
test, the candidates were called for certificate verification in
different spells based on their merit in the written test. The
petitioner was not selected due to his low merit.
LNA,J
4.1. It is further averred that as per the application submitted
by the petitioner, he studied from 4th to 10th class in St.Venus
High School, located at Ramnagar Colony, Chilakanagar, Uppal
of Ranga Reddy district and in Column No.23 under Education
details, though he pursued his school education in Ranga Reddy
district, he mentioned that he belongs to City Cadre. However,
since petitioner studied from 4th class to 10th class in Ranga Reddy
District, he was not considered under City Cadre and was
considered for selection in Zone-VI of Ranga Reddy district.
4.2. It is further averred that as per para-III of the notification, it
is specifically mentioned that Commission is not responsible for
any discrepancy in Bio-data particulars while submitting
application form through Online; that the applicants are
therefore, advised to strictly follow the instructions and User
guide in their own interest before submitting the applications
and the particulars furnished by the applicant in the application
form will be taken as final and data entry would be processed
based on the particulars only by computer.
LNA,J
4.3. It is further averred that when the petitioner is aware that
he pursued his school studies from 4th class to 10 class in
Hyderabad city, he ought to have mentioned Hyderabad at
column-23 under education details, whereas, petitioner
mentioned Ranga Reddy district at column-23 and thus based on
the same, petitioner was considered for Zone-VI. Therefore, after
completion of selection process and after he became aware of
marks of the last selected candidate in City Cadre, the petitioner
cannot turn around and contend that he belongs to City Cadre.
4.4. It is further averred that the candidates selected in the City
Cadre have specifically mentioned Hyderabad in column-23
under Education Details of One Time Registration System (OTR)
application form and the said candidates were considered for
selection under City Cadre, whereas petitioner was considered in
Zone-VI and that the last selected candidate in OC category in
Zone-VI had secured 194 marks, whereas, petitioner secured only
188 marks. Therefore, petitioner was not in zone of consideration
for selection.
LNA,J
5. Learned counsel for petitioner had contended that
petitioner passed SSC in the year 2009 from St.Venus High
School, Chilakanagar, Uppal; Intermediate in the year 2011 and
Degree in Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Osmania
University, Hyderabad in the year 2015 and he belongs to City
Cadre. He further contended that in the Notification No.09/2015,
dated 29.08.2015, the areas which comes under City Cadre are
specifically mentioned and as per which, city of Hyderabad
consists of Hyderabad Division, Secunderabad Division of
Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad
Contonment area, O.U. Campus, Fatehnagar, Bowenpally, Macha
Bolaram, Malkajgiri, Uppal Khalsa, Alwal, Balanagar, Moosapet,
Kukatpally Panchayat Areas and Zamistanpur and Lallaguda
villages.
6. It is further contended petitioner studied from 4th class to
10th class in St.Venus High School, Chilkanagar, Uppal Khalsa,
which is under the limits of Circle-2, GHMC, Uppal Area, and to
that effect, GHMC has issued a letter dated 05.01.2017. Therefore,
petitioner is local candidate of City Cadre as per the definition of
LNA,J
Local Candidate in terms of Para-(7) of A.P. Public Employment
(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order, 1975 (Presidential Orders). He further
contended that petitioner applied for the post of Assistant
Engineer (Civil or Mechanical) in Public Health & Municipal
Engineering Department indicating his zone as City Cadre.
Learned counsel for petitioner pointed out that when petitioner
specifically mentioned as City Cadre insofar as Zone is
concerned, the respondents have committed error in considering
the petitioner as belonging to Ranga Reddy district and Zone-VI
for selection instead of City Cadre. Therefore, petitioner has to be
considered in the posts earmarked for City Cadre. The candidate,
who was placed at Sl.No.60 and less meritorious than the
petitioner, was selected ignoring the petitioner. Therefore, prayed
for suitable directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner
with all consequential benefits.
7. In support of the contentions, learned counsel for petitioner
placed reliance on the following decisions:
LNA,J
i) Vikas Pratap Singh and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh
and others 1;
ii) M.Raj Sekhar vs. The State of Telangana rep.by its Prl.
Secretary and others 2; and
iii) Venkata Swamy Salade vs. The Telangana State Public
Service Commission 3.
8. In Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), the question for
consideration was whether the decision of the respondent - board
in directing re-evaluation of the answer scripts have caused any
prejudice to the appellants appointed qua the first merit list.
8.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by
the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the
answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as
they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or
misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list
nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or
the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary
been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-
evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this
Court irrespective of their length of service."
8.2. In M.Raj Sekhar (supra), learned single Judge of this Court
held as under:
(2013) 14 SCC 494
2020 SCC Online TS 1057
W.P.No.42005 of 2016 dated 19.12.2018
LNA,J
"44. As noticed above, this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme
Court recognized the right of a candidate, who is next in the
eligibility list to claim to include in the merit list and be
appointed to a vacancy against which no appointment order
was issued, as the more meritorious candidate did not apt to
the post in issue. This right is subject to overarching decision
of the employer not to fill a post, even if there is a vacancy, for
valid reasons. From the proposition of law culled out from the
precedent decisions, it is beyond pale of doubt that the
selection process is complete only when appointment orders
are issued to all the candidates included in the merit list to the
extent of vacancies notified or a conscious, well considered
decision is taken not to fill all or any of the vacancies."
8.3. In Venkata Swamy Salade (supra), the learned single
Judge of this Court held as under:
"12. ... At no point of time the 1st respondent seek a
clarification from the petitioner if it had entertained a doubt
as to which zone the petitioner would fall under; and as
stated above, it had totally ignored petitioner's request dt.13-
01-2016 to consider him as having done his schooling in the
Hyderabad District and not in the Ranga Reddy District; and
that in his OTR application as well as application seeking the
post of Assistant Engineer pursuant to the application, he had
erroneously mention his school education as Ranga Reddy
District. "
9. Per contra, learned standing counsel for respondent no.1
had contended that in the OTR application form submitted by the
petitioner in column-23 under 'Education Details', petitioner
mentioned Ranga Reddy district, therefore, he was considered for
selection in Zone-VI, which includes Ranga Reddy. Petitioner
secured 188 marks in written test, whereas, the last selected
LNA,J
candidate in O.C. General category in Zone-VI had secured 194
marks. Since no candidate with less merit than the petitioner in
OC General category and Zone-VI was considered for selection,
the contention of the petitioner is untenable and is only trying to
blame the 1st respondent-Commission after knowing the details
of last meritorious candidate in City Cadre.
9.1. Learned standing counsel also referred to para-III of the
notification, wherein it is specifically stated that the particulars
furnished by the applicant in the OTR application will be taken as
final and data entry would be processed as per the particulars
provided in OTR application. It is also contended that admittedly,
petitioner has got less marks than the last meritorious candidate
selected in Zone-VI, therefore, there is no merit in the writ
petition and same is liable to be dismissed. Learned standing
counsel for respondent no.1 placed reliance on the common
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in K.Krishnaveni and
others vs. The State of Telangana and others 4.
W.A.Nos.1, 2 and 22 of 2023, dated 03.01.2023
LNA,J
10. K.Krishnaveni's case (supra), was filed challenging the
orders passed in W.P.No.40381 of 2022, dated 22.12.2022
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana, wherein
reliance was placed on Union of India v. Mahendra Singh
(2022 Law Suit (SC) 863) and State of Tamil Nadu v.
G.Hemalatha and Pothula Durga Bhavani ( 2019 Law Suit
(SC) 1539) and the Hon'ble Division Bench held that "once it is
admitted that the entries made were inaccurate due to which the
answer sheets of the petitioners were not evaluated, and in view
of the fact that the evaluation in such cases is an electronic
process undertaken through scanners, with no human
intervention, we are of the opinion that no directions can be
issued to the TSPSC to conduct manual screening of the weeded
out answered scripts to collate and declare the results of the
petitioners", and accordingly dismissed the writ petition and the
same was upheld in the present writ appeal and was dismissed
accordingly.
11. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 had
contended that 4th respondent had applied for the post of
Assistant Engineer and participated in the selection process and
he was selected on merit and was appointed after due selection
LNA,J
process. The petitioner has been discharging his duties and at this
stage, it is not appropriate to unsettle the settle things and that
too for no fault of the 4th respondent and for the mistakes
committed by or attributable to the official respondents and
finally, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. Learned counsel for
respondent no.4 placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench
of this Court in G.Rekha and others vs. V.Ramachandra Reddy
and others 5 in support of his contention.
12. In G.Rekha (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held
as under:
"64. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that
the remedial action taken by the Public Service Commission
on the basis of the report of the Technical Committee dated
09.03.2017, did not call for any interference. Once an Expert
Body, such as the Public Service Commission, constituted a
Technical Committee of Academic Experts (that too
outsiders) to examine the issues and once such a Technical
Committee had recommended the evaluation of answer
sheets of candidates who had committed errors in bubbling
the circles in the First Part of the answer sheets, the scope of
the inquiry to be undertaken by the Court is just to find out
whether the Public Service Commission acted bonafide and
whether their decision was arbitrary or unfair and whether
there were justifiable reasons for their action or not. If so
tested on these parameters, the corrective action taken by the
Public Service Commission on the basis of the report of the
Technical Committee cannot be found fault with and the writ
petitions deserved to be dismissed insofar as this aspect is
concerned."
2019 (6) ALD 40(TS) (DB)
LNA,J
Consideration:
13. Perusal of the record would show that pursuant to the
notification dated 29.08.2015, the petitioner has submitted
application for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil or
Mechanical) in Public Health & Municipal Engineering
Department. Perusal of OTR application form submitted by the
petitioner would show that in respect of local district, petitioner
mentioned the same as Ranga Reddy district and in respect of
district, he has mentioned Hyderabad and in respect of Zone, he
has mentioned City Cadre. Thus, it is clear that petitioner has
specifically mentioned City Cadre insofar as the zone is
concerned and Hyderabad as a district insofar as District is
concerned. However, he mentioned Ranga Reddy in the column
of local district.
14. The petitioner studied 4th class to 10th class in St.Venus
High School, Chilkanagar, Uppal. It is pertinent to refer to letter
dated 05.01.2017 issued by the GHMC, Hyderabad, wherein it is
mentioned that Chilkanagar comes under Uppal Khalsa in
GHMC within the limits of Circle-2, GHMC, Uppal area and also
LNA,J
Residence Certificate, dated 05.01.2017 issued by the Revenue
Department, Government of Telangana, as per which, petitioner
is residing in H.No.2-23-26/3, Chilkanagar, Uppal Mandal,
Medchal district. As per letter dated 02.01.2017 issued by
St.Venus High School, Chilakanagar, Uppal, St.Venus School is
located in Chilkanagar, Uppal Mandal, Medchal district and
belongs to Uppal Khalsa (Municipality). In the said letter, it is
specifically mentioned that the said school is functioning under
the control of District Educational Officer, Medchal district.
15. It is relevant to refer to Notification, dated 29.08.2015,
where under the areas covered in the City Cadre are mentioned
in detail, which read as under:
City Cadre: "City of Hyderabad consist of Hyderabad
Division, Secunderabad Division of Municipal Corporation of
Hyderabad, Secunderabad Contonment area, O.U. Campus,
Fatehnagar, Bowenpally, Macha Bolaram, Malkajgiri, Uppal
Khalsa, Alwal, Balanagar, Moosapet, Kukatpally Panchayat
Areas and Zamistanpur and Lallaguda villages. (HYD)."
16. Thus, the areas covered under City Cadre, as mentioned in
the notification, includes Uppal Khalsa. The petitioner studied 4th
class to 10th class in St.Venus High School, Chilkanagar, Uppal
Mandal. As per the certificate dated 05.01.2017, the place of
LNA,J
residence of petitioner comes under Uppal Khalsa. Further, as per
letter dated 05.01.2017 issued by the GHMC, Hyderabad,
Chilkanagar, which was under Uppal Khalsa in Greater
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and comes within the limits of
Circle-2, GHMC, Uppal area. Admittedly, petitioner has secured
188 marks and the last selected candidate in OC General category
in City Cadre has secured 186 marks, which are less than the
marks secured by the petitioner.
17. The judgments relied upon by the leaned counsel for
respondents are distinguishable on facts and have no application
to the present case.
18. However, the decision of Venkata Swamy Salade (supra),
relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner, squarely
applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case also,
despite specifically mentioning City Cadre in respect of Zone by
the petitioner in OTR application, 1st respondent had considered
the candidature of the petitioner in Zone-VI by referring to local
district column, wherein the petitioner mentioned the same as
Ranga Reddy district.
LNA,J
19. It is relevant to note that the school, in which petitioner
studied 4th class to 10th class comes under Uppal Khalsa and
Uppal Khalsa is included in the City Cadre as per the notification
dated 29.08.2015. Therefore, petitioner's candidature ought to
have been considered for selection in City Cadre, more so, when
the petitioner specifically mentioned that he belongs to City
Cadre in OTR application. The contention of the 1st respondent
that since petitioner mentioned the local district as Ranga Reddy,
he was considered in Zone-VI and as the petitioner was not
coming within the zone of consideration, he was not selected for
the post of Assistant Engineer, is untenable. The 1st respondent
failed to offer any explanation/clarification as to why the
petitioner was considered for selection in Zone-VI, though, the
petitioner specifically mentioned that he belongs to City Cadre in
OTR application.
20. Respondent No.4 was appointed pursuant to the
provisional list dated 09.05.2016 and since then, he has been
rendering service and has rendered about 8 years till date. As
such, at this stage, it is not feasible to replace the 4th respondent
LNA,J
by the petitioner for the mistakes/irregularities committed by the
official respondents. Therefore, in considered opinion of this
Court, ends of justice will be met if the official respondents are
directed to appoint the petitioner in City Cadre by creating
supernumerary post if necessary.
21. Therefore, in the light of above discussion, in considered
opinion of this Court, Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and is
accordingly allowed. Respondent No.1 is directed to appoint the
petitioner in the post of Assistant Engineer in Public Health &
Municipal Engineering Department in terms of the notification
No.09/2015, dated 29.08.2015 in City Cadre in OC general
category and if necessary, by creating a supernumerary post. The
above exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 27.09.2024
kkm
