Allowed

G.Shanker, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Telangana HC29 Sept 2011WP/23576/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted relief to associations representing Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe communities challenging the 65% minimum marks requirement for Engineering Trainees at BEHL, distinguishing it from other posts retaining 60% relaxation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to consider S.C. and S.T. candidates with 60% marks (5% relaxation) for the post.

G.Shanker, Vs The Chairman and Managing… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23576 of 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

The petitioners are associations representing Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe communities. They filed this writ petition assailing the action of the respondents in not permitting the candidates of the respective communicates with 50% marks in the qualifying examination to appear in the recruitment test conducted by Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (B.H.E.L.), respondent No.1 herein.

¶4

Respondent No.1 is one of the important Public Sector Undertakings established by the Union of India. It recruits employees of different categories year after year. One such category is “Engineering Trainee”. The selection process involves a written examination and interview. Reservations in accordance with the policy decisions taken by the Government of India from time to time are also followed by respondent No.1. Reservation to the extent of 15% and 7% respectively in favour of S.C. and S.T. candidates is also provided for.

¶5

In addition to the reservation, relaxation of the limits of the minimum marks in the qualifying examination and the age has been extended to such candidates to enable them to appear in the written test. Till the year 2009, minimum marks in the qualifying examination stipulated for unreserved candidates used to be 60%, whereas it was 50% for S.C. and S.T. candidates. A decision was taken by respondent No.1 to enhance the minimum marks to 65% for the post of Engineering Trainee. However, they have dispensed with the relaxation in this regard and thereby, blurred the distinction between the general candidates on the one hand

¶6

and S.C. and S.T. candidates on the other on this aspect. The petitioners challenge this action of the respondents. It is urged that for all other posts, the benefit of relaxation of minimum percentage of marks is continued, whereas for the post of Engineering Trainee, it is done away with. It is also stated that while the enhancement of minimum marks for general category candidates is of 60% to 65%, for the S.C. and S.T. candidates it has turned out to be from 50% to 65% and thereby, discriminatory treatment was meted out to the member of the said communities. With these and other subsidiary contentions, the petitioners challenge the action of the respondents.

¶7

A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. It is stated that the parameters of selection for the post of Engineering Trainee are a bit stringent and with a view to ensure that meritorious candidates are selected, uniform percentage of marks is stipulated for all categories of candidates even while maintaining the reservation in favour of S.C. and S.T. candidates.

¶8

Heard Ms.Marie Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri E.Manohar Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Basically, it would be for an employer to stipulate qualifications for the post, which they intend to fill. This Court cannot function as an appellate authority and substitute its own opinion in this regard. However, where the implementation of reservations, as provided for under the Constitution is at issue, a closer scrutiny is warranted. It is not as if the petitioners are insisting on the respondents to extend any new facility or concession. Recognising the comparative backwardness or

¶10

weakness of the candidates belonging to S.C. and S.T. communities, respondent No.1 has taken a decision to provide relaxation in the matter of minimum percentage of marks. Even now, such a facility exists for other posts also.

¶11

On finding prima facie, that relaxation, at least to the extent of 5% ought to have been extended, this Court passed an interim order on 02.09.2011, directing that respondent No.1 shall permit the S.C. and S.T. candidates with 60% marks to appear in the written test for the post of Engineering Trainee.

¶12

Though the learned counsel for the petitioners insisted that the relaxation to the extent of 50% must be provided to such candidates, this Court was not inclined to accept the same. With the increase of merit in general and it is having become an important factor in all the organisations, it is not at all advisable to permit the candidates with less than 60% marks to compete for such posts. Further, there are quite large number of candidates from S.C. and S.T. category themselves, who have secured more than 60% marks. When achieving excellence is the aim of such organisations and when they are facing challenges at international level, the journey should not be towards mediocracy.

¶13

The direction was complied with and it is represented that 5096 candidates became eligible on this count, and that out of them, 1039 have acquired eligibility to be called for the interview. With this, the arrangement for the present round of selection virtually accommodates the candidates of the said categories.

¶14

The respondents have to consider the cases of the candidates, who have become eligible on account of compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 02.09.2011. As regards the future selections, the matter needs to be left to be dealt with by respondent No.3 at the appropriate level.

¶15

Hence, the writ petition is allowed directing that the respondents shall consider the cases of the candidates belonging to S.C. and S.T. by giving relaxation to the extent of 5% for the post of Engineering Trainee in the ongoing selections. It is left open to respondent No.1 to take a policy decision for future recruitments. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶17

Dt.29.09.2011.

¶18

kdl

G.Shanker, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Shanker, v. The Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. David Sam Roy, Vs The Hyderabad Public School Society

K. Jyothi Vs The District Educational OFficer

T. Henry Paul Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Bank Ltd.

E.P.V. Dasama Naidu Vs The Government of Ap, rep by its Secretary

Ganta Venkata Bhagya Lakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal

Gangolu Akkamma Vs The PRoject OFficer