Telangana High Court
Nagamalla Pabanjan vs The Director General on 29 July, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 33251 OF 2018
O R D E R:
The case of petitioner is that the 2nd respondent -
Institute of Forest Biodiversity issued Recruitment Notification
dated 17.04.2018 for five different posts, one among them is
Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) under which there were two
categories; one Sanitary Attendant (SA) and another Office
Attendant (OA). Accordingly, petitioner applied for the post of
Multi-Tasking Staff; he secured 63 marks in the written
examination, however, he could not find place in the merit list
on the ground that he did not superscribe his Application
mentioning the exact position he applied for i.e. either Office
Attendant or Sanitary Attendant. The grievance of petitioner is
that Recruitment Notification for that matter, Schedule for
Written Examination dated 02.07.2018, had not stipulated that
a candidate has to mandatorily mention the specific position on
the Application. For the first time, while preparing merit list for
different posts, results were separately mentioned as Multi-
Tasking Staff (OA) for 448 candidates and Multi-Tasking Staff
(SA) for four candidates. It is complained that petitioner got 63
marks but his name was appearing in only Multi-Tasking Staff
(OA), but missing for Multi-Tasking Staff (SA). He never chose
either OA or SA as it was never asked in the notification.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Ramesh Chilla
submits that action of respondents in drawing two merit lists
from a single written examination, is contrary to recruitment
notification, arbitrary and violates the equality under Article 14
of the Constitution. In support thereof, he relied on the
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankarsan Dash
v. Union of India 1 and Union of India v Tarun K. Singh 2. It
is also his contention that his client suffered mental trauma,
hence, he shall be compensated. He placed in this regard
reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India 3 and S.P. Sampath
Kumar v. Union of India 4.
3. By order dated 18.09.2018, this Court granted
interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Recruitment
Notification dated 17.04.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent
specifically the post of Multi-Tasking Staff. Thereafter,
respondents had taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2018 seeking vacation of
the said order. Along with the Application, counter was also
(1991) 3 SCC 47
(2003) 11 SCC 628
(2000) 8 SCC 25
(1987) 1 SCC 124
filed stating that in the Notification under general instructions
point No.4 "the envelope containing the application should be
superscripted application for the post of.......". The envelope
without superscription will not be entertained for further
scrutiny. In spite of the incomplete Application, only on
humanitarian grounds, he was permitted for the examination.
Therefore, the contention of petitioner is liable to be rejected on
the ground of 'incomplete or not submitted in prescribed format'
and application for more than one post in single application.
4. This Court by order dated 23.10.2018 dismissed the
said Application recording that advertisement did not require
petitioner to indicate the choice, hence, respondents cannot
blame petitioner and deprive him of consideration for either of
the posts. Hence, stay was made absolute.
5. Across the bar, it is submitted by Ms. L. Pranathi
Reddy, learned counsel on behalf of Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar,
learned Deputy Solicitor General that Writ Petition becomes
infructuous since petitioner secured another employment and
when asked, whether he is interested to join the post, the
answer is 'no'. Learned counsel for petitioner objects the said
contention as legally-untenable. It is contended that Petitioner's
current employment does not render the Writ Petition
infructuous as he seeks to address respondents' arbitrary
actions and claim compensation for the trauma and loss
suffered. He relied on the judgments in Dr. (Mrs.) Meera
Masssey v. Dr. S.R. Mehrotra 5 and State of U.P. v. Raj
Kishore Yadav 6 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
a Writ Petition challenging an illegal recruitment process does
not become infructuous merely because petitioner secured
alternative employment; the Court can still adjudicate on the
merits to ensure justice and prevent the recurrence of such
illegalities.
6. From the submissions of learned counsel, it is clear
that petitioner secured employment elsewhere and he is not
willing to join this department. Hence, in view of the settled
legal position that appointment is not a vested right, this Court
is not in a position to accept the contention of petitioner that he
is entitled to compensation on the alleged mental trauma.
7. It is to be noted that there is no mandatory
stipulation that a candidate has to superscribe the Application
mentioning the specific internal category he is applying for
within the Multi-Tasking staff. This Court granted interim stay
which continued on account of dismissal of the Petition to
(1998) 3 SCC 88
(2006) 5 SCC 673
vacate stay. It is to be further noted that the Notification itself
was stayed and it is not the case of petitioner that other
candidates were appointed in the interregnum. This Court
therefore, is of the considered view that in the light of the
interim stay that has become absolute, no further orders are
required in the Writ Petition.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed.
Respondents are at liberty to appoint suitable candidate to the
post of Multi-Tasking Staff by following due procedure in law.
No costs.
9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any
shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
29th July 2025
ksld
