Chintaiah Veerla v. the State of Ap
Case brief
What is this about?
Home Guards special quota (Rule 3D(v), 15%/25%) police constable recruitment; SLPRB notification Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 (28.11.2022), 1167 Home Guard quota vacancies; PET/PMT disqualification on par with general candidates; separate qualifying marks and relaxed physical tests denied; courts cannot alter Article 309 recruitment rules (Dharam Bir; Arvindkumar T. Tiwari); vertical vs horizontal reservation precedents (2016 (6) ALT 14 B. Sambasiva Rao; ALT 2017 (5) 683 P. Nagarjuna; W.P.No.1142/2016 batch; W.P.No.6631/2024 batch) distinguished; Ex-servicemen Rule 22 analogy rejected (Mohd. Yunus); participation-in-selection precludes later challenge (Ranjan Kumar v. State of Bihar); Rule 3(C)(D) G.O.Ms.No.315; Rule 22 APSSR 1996; 44 writ petitions dismissed by Nyapathy Vijay J on 18.09.2025.
What did the court decide?
Physical Measurement and Efficiency requirements must be examined from the view point of the requirement of the post of Police Constable; the plea that Home Guards, merely because they are a separate quota, should get separate qualifying marks and relaxed physical tests is incorrect.