Telangana High Court
Moluguri Divya vs High Court For The State Of Telangana on 18 March, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
WRIT PETITION NO.36420 OF 2024
ORDER:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda)
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the
respondents in issuing the termination order, dated
17.12.2024, without issuing any prior notice or without
following due process of law, especially when the alleged
selection of the petitioner as local candidate is well within the
knowledge of the respondent authorities prior to her
appointment, as bad, arbitrary, illegal, high-handed and
violative of Articles, 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India and set aside the same and consequently, to direct the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all
consequential benefits.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1
issued Notification bearing No.01 of 2023, dated 02.01.2023
for filling up of various posts including the post of Junior
Assistant in District Judiciary of respondent No.2 authority.
She is a resident of Hanumkonda District. Since the
petitioner possessing the necessary qualifications as
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
mentioned in the Notification, she applied for the post of
Junior Assistant under non-local category. On 30.06.2023,
the respondent authorities released the provisional selection
list of the candidates, wherein the name of the petitioner was
reflected in Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. Pursuant to the
same, she was issued appointment order, dated 14.02.2024
appointing as Junior Assistant with respondent No.2 duly
fixing the roster point. It is further stated that from the date
of her appointment, she has been working to the utmost
satisfaction of the higher authorities and she also applied to
departmental examinations to get eligibility for further
promotions. While so, respondent No.2 issued order, dated
17.12.2024 terminating her from service on the sole ground
that she was appointed under local reserved post. She stated
that the said termination order was communicated to her on
18.12.2024.
3. It is further stated that letter, dated 02.08.2023,
addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 clearly
depicts that she was provisionally selected for the post of
Junior Assistant under local category even though she is non-
local candidate. In the said letter, it is also stated that one
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
candidate namely Sri Ram Babu Mekala, who was
provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assistant belongs
to non-local candidate has withdrawn his application during
certificate verification and said post was kept vacant. It is
further stated in the said letter that the petitioner was
provisionally selected under local category be switched to
non-local category as the said post is still vacant as on date.
It is further stated that the respondents having knowledge
that she was erroneously selected under local category, the
respondents ought not to have to issue appointment order
instead of rectifying their mistake prior to her join in the said
post. It is further stated that on presumption she was
successfully selected and appointed as Junior Assistant, she
did not choose to join in the post of Police Constable (Civil) in
Department of Police and not attempting any examinations
i.e., Group-I Bank jobs etc. No fault of the petitioner, the
respondents have thrown her into financial and emotional
turmoil having complete knowledge that the entire selection
process is wrong.
4. Further, from the proceedings, dated 11.07.2024,
26.07.2024 and 02.12.2024, it is clear that the respondents
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
have decided to de-select the petitioner and appoint another
candidate in her place namely Degala Samrajyam. Therefore,
the respondent authorities have complete knowledge of
erroneous selection process from the beginning not only
appointing the petitioner as Junior Assistant, on the other
hand they were plotting to de-select her on the ground that
she was appointed in wrong category, without putting her on
notice and not following the due process of law. Therefore
the action of the respondent authorities in issuing
termination order, dated 17.12.2024, to the petitioner is
illegal and arbitrary.
5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit
denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of
the writ petition and it is stated that the total number of posts
notified in the category of Junior Assistant in the unit of
learned Principal District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem were
17. Out of which, the first five posts / 1 to 5 roster points are
in open category, for which both local and non-local
candidates can compete and the most meritorious candidates
out of the total lot would be selected. It is stated that in the
present case, none of the non-local candidates were selected
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
against 1st five roster points /1st five positions as they were
loss meritorious than the local candidates who competed. It
is also stated that the marks secured by the last selected
candidate in 1 to 5 roster points i.e., unreserved category is
72 while the petitioner secured 60 marks. It is stated that
the petitioner was de-selected and replaced by the next
eligible and meritorious candidate, namely Degala
Samrajyam, who belonged to local category. The other
provisionally selected candidate namely Rambabu Mekala, a
non-local candidate, who expressed his unwillingness to join
the post was also replaced by the next eligible meritorious
candidate than the petitioner, who belonged to local category.
6. It is further stated that the petitioner having not
challenged or disputed the factual correctness of impugned
decision, her only grievance is that her services were
terminated without giving any opportunity to submit her
explanation and without issuing a show-cause notice. It is
stated that the termination of the petitioner is not on the
ground of misconduct, which would otherwise warrant an
explanation from the employee giving her due opportunity to
explain her case.
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
7. In the present case, the petitioner's selection was
inadvertent. She was selected in the category reserved for
locals in fact she is a non-local. The petitioner does not
dispute the factual correctness of the basis of termination and
thus issuing of notice would have been an empty formality.
The petitioner was admittedly not given an opportunity to
rebut the grounds of termination order. Even if she was given
an opportunity before issuing the impugned order, no amount
of explanation would change the decision due to admitted fact
that the petitioner being a non-local was inadvertently
selected as a local candidate and as such the exercise of
affording opportunity would not yield any positive result. The
selection of the petitioner was inadvertent and she could not
have been allowed to continue in the said post as it is against
the eligibility criteria and the selection process. The initial
appointment of the petitioner itself is void and therefore, the
petitioner cannot claim any accrued right to the said post and
therefore, she is not entitled for any relief and hence, he prays
to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Heard Mr.R.Anurag, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
the High Court for the State of Telangana, appearing for the
respondents.
9. Having perused the entire material on record, the
points that arise for consideration before this Bench are
(i) Whether termination order, dated 17.12.2024
issued by the respondents is valid and justified and same
is liable to be set aside?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
in response to the notification issued by respondent No.1, the
petitioner applied to the post of Junior Assistant. She
appeared for written examination, qualified and selected for
the post of Junior Assistant under local category and posted
before respondent No.2 being fully aware that the petitioner
being a non-local candidate. Now, under the garb of
inadvertence, the respondents cannot terminate her from
service having allowed her to work for a period of one year.
Learned counsel further submits that under the impression
that she already appointed as Junior Assistant before
respondent No.2, she lost her other opportunities wherever
she applied. Learned counsel further submitted that the
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
respondents having complete knowledge of erroneous
selection of the petitioner under wrong category from the
beginning, have not only appointed her, but on the other
hand decided to de-select her on the ground that she was
appointed under wrong category, without putting her on
notice and without following due process of law. Learned
counsel further submitted that when the petitioner was
appointed under local category, the mode and method of
termination by the respondents is arbitrary as she was
terminated in a highhanded manner without issuing any
notice and without following the principles of natural justice
and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned termination
order, dated 17.12.2024.
11. Learned Standing Counsel for High Court for the
State of Telangana appearing for the respondents submitted
that the petitioner having fully aware that she is a resident of
Hanumkonda District and she comes under non-local
category, applied to the post of Junior Assistant under local
category and claimed the post which is to be filled up by
meritorious candidates of local candidates. It is stated that
the total number of posts notified for the post of Junior
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
Assistant in the unit of learned Principal District Judge,
Bhadradri-Kothagudem were 17 and out of which, first five
posts / 1 to 5 roster points are open category, for which both
local and non-local candidates can compete and the most
meritorious candidates out of the total lot would be selected.
In the present case, none of non-local candidate were selected
against roster points 1 to 5 /1st five positions. It is stated
that the marks secured by the last selected candidate in 1 to
5 roster points i.e., unreserved category is 72 and the
petitioner secured 60 marks. He further submitted that the
petitioner was de-selected and was replaced by the next
eligible and meritorious candidate namely Degala Samrajyam
who belongs to the local category. He also further submitted
that another provisionally selected candidate namely
Rambabu Mekala, a non-local candidate, who expressed his
unwillingness to join the post was also replaced by the next
eligible and meritorious candidate who belonged to local
category. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot
take undue advantage of a mistake committed by the
respondents and continue in the post. In support of his
contentions, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar
Singh and others 1 and in Atul Kumar Singh v. State of
U.P. 2 wherein at paragraph Nos.34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"34. In view of aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the
recommendation of Selection Committee and appointment of the
petitioner made by the respondent No.4-Committee of Management
vide appointment order dated 29.11.1998, in absence of "Type Test",
both were/are de-hors the Rules and being so are nullity and void, ab
initio and accordingly the petitioner has no right to hold the post nor he
is entitled to continue on the post nor he is entitled to salary from the
State-Exchequer.
35. The Supreme Court in Yogesh Kumar v. Government of
NCT Delhi and others (2003) 3 SCC 548 held that appointment has
to be strictly as per statutory rules. A person not possessing requisite
qualification and appointment made de-hors of the rules without
following procedure, the appointment is illegal since inception, no est,
nullity and no legal right to continue or right over the post and length
of continuous service of such illegal appointment will not help the
petitioner.
36. Vide Mohd. Sartaj v. State of U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 315,
Sushil Kumar Dwivedi v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Banda (DB)
(2003) 2 UPLBEC 1216, in Mamta Mohanti case (supra) and Mohd.
Sartaj case (Supra), Committee of Management v. State of U.P. (DB)
(2009) 2 ALJ 528 it was held that in case, approval is granted by the
authority to a person who lacks qualification then it is a serious lapse
on the part of the authority, justifying suitable disciplinary action
against such careless and negligent authorities. Illegal appointments
cannot be regularized. There is a distinction between irregularity and
illegality. Irregularity can be regularized but not illegality.
(2021) 19 Supreme Court Cases 706
2020 SCC Online All 2677
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
37. In State of Karnataka vs. KGSD Canteen Employees
Welfare Ass. (2006) 1 SCC 567, Mamta Mohanty case (Supra) and
Sushil Kumar Dwivedi case (Supra) it was held that any action of
an officer or authority of the State which is contrary to law, as in the
facts of the present case approval granted by the B.S.A. in spite of the
fact that the petitioners were not qualified and there was no
sanctioned posts, such approval cannot bind the State to pay the
salary from the State Exchequer (refer; State of Manipur vs. Y
Token Singh (2007) 5 SCC 65).
38. In Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services
Commission and others (2008) 7 SCC 153 Supreme Court held
mandamus can be sought when there is a legal right and
corresponding duty upon the State Agency. Petitioners who did not
possess valid degree held had no right to appointment and, therefore,
could not seek mandamus.
39. In Regional Manager, Central Bank of India vs.
Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and others (2008) 13 SCC 170
Supreme Court held that a person appointed against a reserved post
for S.T. against forged social status certificate cannot upon termination
claim to be retained merely on the ground that he has worked for over
20 years.
40. With regard to the other pleas taken by the learned counsel
for the petitioner for interfering in the matter and allowing the writ
petition, which are to the effect that opportunity of hearing was not
given to the petitioner prior to passing of order dated 21.11.1998 and
the respondent no.2-BSA has no power to cancel the appointment of
petitioner, are concerned this Court is of the view that on the said
grounds the interference in the matter is not required. It is in view of
the principle to the effect that issuance of a writ or quashing/setting
aside of an order if revives another pernicious or wrong or illegal order
then in that eventuality the writ court should not interfere in the matter
and should refuse to exercise its discretionary power conferred upon it
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ court should
not quash the order if it revives a wrong or illegal order. Vide : Gadde
Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966
SC 828; Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo v. State of
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 16: AIR 1999 SC 3609: 1999 AIR SCW
3623; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237: AIR 1999
SC 2583; Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa v. State of
Karnataka, (2000) 7 SCC 238: AIR 2000 SC 2976: 2000 AIR SCW
3289; and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 6 SCC
545: AIR 2003 SC 2889: 2003 AIR SCW 3518 and Raj Kumar Soni v.
State of U.P., (2007) 10 SCC 635."
12. There is no dispute as to the petitioner applying to
the post of the Junior Assistant pursuant to the notification
issued by respondent No.1 for appointment to various posts,
including the post of Junior Assistant. She appeared for the
examination and selected against 1st five roster points / 1st
five positions and respondent No.2 issued appointment letter
to the petitioner. A perusal of Ex.P.3 application form filed by
the petitioner shows that she made application for the post of
Junior Assistant in the Judicial District of Bhadradri-
Kothagudem as a non-local candidate. Originally, she
belongs to Hanumkonda District, comes under non-local
category. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner never
claimed that she is a local candidate. She appeared for
computer based examination and selected provisionally
subject to satisfaction of eligibility criteria, such as
educational qualifications, community, reservation, and local
status in accordance with the Telangana Public Employment
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
(Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct
Recruitment) Order 2018. It is also specifically stated in the
said notification dated 30.06.2023 that if provisionally
selected candidates do not fulfill the requirements as
mentioned in the notification, the next meritorious candidates
will be selected in that slot. It is further stated in the
notification that the appointing authority deserves the right to
cancel selection of appointment to the post at any stage as
per the letter dated 27.07.2023 issued by respondent No.1
and directed the learned Principal District Judge Bhadradri-
Kothagudem District to issue appointment orders to the
provisionally selected candidates of Junior Assistants only
after verification of their antecedents by the concerned police
and after confirming that there are no adverse remarks
against the provisionally selected candidates were notified
against the roster points and cycle noted against their names.
In the said list, petitioner's name was shown at Sl.No.2
against roster point No.2 under the category of woman.
13. Further, respondent No.2 addressed a letter, dated
02.08.2023, to respondent No.1 calling for information of
provisionally selected candidates of different posts including
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
the petitioner, in which it is stated that the petitioner was
provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assistant as a
local candidate. But, as per the study certificate of the
individual she comes under non-local as she belongs to
Hanumkonda District and treated her as Non-local instead of
local. Respondent No.1 vide ROC No.1811/2023-RC, dated
07.08.2023, addressed a letter to respondent No.2 stating
that soon after taking a decision against the petitioner and
another, they will inform the same for taking further action in
the matter. Subsequently, vide proceedings
Dis.No.390/ADMN/DCBKGM, dated 14.02.2024, the learned
Principal District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem issued list of
selected candidates including the petitioner for the post of
Junior Assistant and after fixing the seniority of the
candidates, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistant in
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Bhadrachalam. It is further clarified in the said proceedings
that the selected candidates are purely on temporary basis
and they are liable to be terminated at any time without any
prior notice or without assigning any reason. Thereafter, the
Registrar (Recruitment) vide its letter dated 11.07.2024
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
informed the learned Principal District Judge that the High
Court having considered his letter had decided to de-list the
provisionally selected candidates of Junior Assistants i.e.,
Sri Ram Babu Mekala and Ms.Moluguri Divya (petitioner).
Further, vide R.O.C.No.1811/2022-RC, dated 02.12.2024, the
respondent No.1 held that considering the letter, dated
26.07.2024, they have decided to provisionally select the
candidate viz., Sandhyarani Samandula for the post of Junior
Assistant and subsequently deleted her name having found
her to be non-local and selected Degala Samrajyam the next
meritorious candidate in her place and issued appointment
order to the said provisionally selected candidate as Junior
Assistant provisionally subject to verification of her
antecedents by the concerned police.
14. The main contention of the petitioner is that the
respondents having admitted that the appointment of the
petitioner being a mistake on the part of the respondents and
being fully aware that the petitioner being a non-local
candidate, in the course of arguments to a question posed by
this bench, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents
placed the marks obtained by the petitioner along with the
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
other selected candidate and also the candidates who have
been selected in her place, it is found that the petitioner has
got less number of marks comparing to other individuals, who
have been selected after selecting her in the open category of
roster point 125. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to non-
local. Though she is claiming to be appointed under local
category, she would have an opportunity of being selected
under non-local category in the open category. But, the
individuals who were already appointed under the open
category are more meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore,
the case of the petitioner that she got more marks than others
cannot be accepted.
15. The other ground raised by the petitioner is that
without giving any notice, opportunity and without following
due process of law, she was de-selected from the post of
Junior Assistant and the same is in violation of principles of
natural justice. The respondents having allowed her to work
for a considerable period of nine months and odd and now
cannot de-select by cancelling her appointment. The aspect of
the non-following of principles of natural justice, as seen from
the entire record, the appointment letter and the notification
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
which would clearly show that the selection and appointment
of the petitioner was only provisional and right is reserved
with the respondents that whenever it is found that she is not
eligible, the respondents have a right to cancel her
appointment at any point of time without any notice. On the
ground that there being a mistake on the part of the
respondents, the petitioner being a non-local and less
meritorious candidate, the question of accommodating her in
the open category does not arise and she cannot claim any
equities on the ground that the respondents have not followed
the principles of natural justice and there is mistake of
appointment.
16. Admittedly, the appointment itself being a mistake
of fact, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and
now claim the equities and also claim her position to be
restored. Under the present set of facts, no doubt the
appointment of the petitioner being irregular due to the
mistake and inadvertence of the concerned respondents, in
view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yogesh
Kumar v. Government of NCT Delhi and others 3, Mohd.
(2003) 3 SCC 548
PSK,J&NNR,J
wp_36420_2024
Sartaj v. State of U.P 4 and in Sudhir Kumar Singh's case
(supra) this bench is of the opinion that the petitioner has no
case before this Court to seek interference with the
termination order. On examination of entire material on
record and rival contentions of both the parties, this bench is
of the opinion that there are no grounds to interfere with the
termination, dated 17.12.2024 passed by respondent No.1.
17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
___________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Date: 18.03.2025
YVL
(2006) 2 SCC 315
