Dismissed

Alya Naik v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Sept 2020WP/14567/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenging non-consideration as a local candidate in an employment recruitment process. The Court held that the applicant voluntarily opted for Hyderabad district allocation despite studying in Nalgonda, thus forfeiting local status there. Relief was denied due to delay and potential prejudice to other candidates.

What did the court decide?

Petition for direction to treat petitioner as a local candidate of Nalgonda District and appear in selection process was dismissed.

Alya Naik Vs The State of Telangana — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 14567 OF 2020

¶7

Between:

¶8

Alya Naik, S/o. K.Dhakna Aged about 46 years Occ. Artisan-Gr.ll (Emp.lD. No.5107777) R/o. Plot No.12, Venkateshwara Colony, lnJa^p u r, Abdullapurmet lvlandal, R.R.District

¶9

,..PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary for Energy Dept. Secretarrat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 The Chairman and Managing Director, TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, Mint Compound, Gr. Hyderabad.

¶13

3 Seletion committee for recruitment of Jr. Lineman, Rep. by its Convener, Superintending Engineer/OP/ Nalgonda

¶14

4 Seletion committee for recruitment of Jr. Lineman, Rep. by its Convener, SuperintendingEngineer/OP/BaniaraHills,Hyderabad

¶15

...*aspoNDENrs

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not considering my case as a local candidate of Nalgonda District for the vacancy of Jr. Lineman pursuant to the recruitment notification No.1/2019 dated 28-09-2019 and not calling for interviews for pole climbing test to be commenced from 3rd September onward even though belongs to Local candidate of Nalgonda as^per area of study as arbitrary, illegal and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of lndia and against the principles of natural^justice and consequently direct the respondents to peimit me to appear in the ensuing^pole climbing test Nalgonda District in the interest of^justice

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner for interview too the post of Junior Lineman and to kept one vacancy in respect of the petitioner is concerned at Nalgonda by considering the representation of petitioner dated 14-08-2020 prior to finalize the selection process pending disposal of this writ^petition in the interest of^justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. V. PRAVEEN KUMAR Counsel for Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI R. VINOD REDDY,

¶19

S.C FOR T.S.S.P.D.C.L.

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO. 14567 O" 2O2O

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G Vidyasagar, Iearned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶25

In response to the Recruitment Notification No.l of 2019, dated 28.09.2019, for recruitment to the post of Junior Lineman, petitioner applied and participated in the selections conducted by the respondent - Company with Hall Ticket No. 150606. Petitioner secured 4 I marks and u,as assigned 172 rank. Petitioner is treated as non local to Hyderabad district and though he is a iocal candidate of Nalgonda district, he is not included in the merit list of local candidates of Nalgonda district. He alleges that in Hyderabad district against non-local vacancies only 50 candidates were short listed. Hence, this writ petition is liled praying to direct the respondents to subject the petitioner for further selection process by treating him as local candidate of Nalgonda District.

¶26

According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner studied his entire education in the area falling in territorial jurisdiction of the Nalgonda District and is native of Nalgonda District. In the application form, he has shown his local candidate status as belonging to Nalgonda District, and therefore he should be treated as a local candidate of Nalgonda District in all respects. lf the petitioner is treated as local candidate of Nalgonda District, he will be within the zone ol selection and eligible for further selection process. Many persons r.l,ho secured less merit than the petitioner in Nalgonda District are called for Pole Climbir-rg Test. He further submits that not treating the pctirioner as local candidate of Nalgonda District and treating him as non-local in HS.derabad District is illegal and g1-bitrary.

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioner sought to emphasis that petitioner is local candidate of Nalgonda district and what is shown agains, Circle/ District name is for consideration against 5 7o quota if he secures overall merit in the selections, therefore, on that count he cannot be denied consideration as local candidate of Nalgonda district.

¶28

Learned senior counsel appearing for respondents opposed the said claim by contending that in the application form, petitioner disclosed his study of education from 1"t class to 7th class as Nalgonda District but against the column 'Circle / Distric t Name', he entered the name of Hyderabad District. In vieu' of said declaration, the computer generated message alerted the petitioner by asking him, whether he was wiiling to consider only against 5olo euota in Hyderabad District and the petitioner t1,ped as Yes'. Therefore, he is considered only against 5ol, vacancies in Hvderabad District and he cannot be considered as local candidate in Nalgonda District.

¶29

As per the Telangana Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, as amended from time to time 95%o of the District Cadre Posts are filled by the local candidates of the District and 5% are kept open to be filled up on the over all merit without regard to the local candidate status. The post of Junior Lineman is a District Cadre Post. A person is treated as a local candidate of a district, if he has studied from Classes l^st to 7rh in that particular district and will be considered against posts reserved for local candidates of that District.

¶30

At page No.24 of the writ petition paper book, photocopy of applicatior-r submitted by the petitioner is enclosed. In the said application, against the school education details, district was entered as Nalgonda District. He has disclosed prosecution of his education from l"t class to 7th class in Nalgonda District. Above this column, against

¶31

¶32

education details in the column against 'local district you belong', petitioner has entered as Nalgonda District. That being so, against the column 'Circle / District Name', he mentioned as Hyderabad and agreed to be considered against 57o vacancies only.

¶33

Since the petitioner claimed that he has studied in Nalgonda District, he would have been treated as a local candidate of Nalgonda District, if he has opted for recruitment to the post in that district, whereas he has opted to be considered in Hyderabad District by entering the name of Hyderabad district against 'Circle/ District Name'. Insolar as the respondent - company is concerned, the circle is coterminous r.l ith the District. As petitioner is a local candidate of Nalgonda District, br-rt opted to Hyderabad district, he is treated as a candidate to be considered against 570 quota in Hyderabad district.

¶34

Paragraph VIII of the Recruitment Notification deals u'ith 'Procedure lor Selection'. Note (i) appended to this paragraph inlbrms the candidates that the selection list will be drarr,'n into two parts and the first part will comprise 5^o/o of the posts consisting of combined merit list and the second part will comprise the balance 95 %o of the posts for the local candidates of the concerned district. It also directs that if a person opts to Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Medchal-Malkajgiri districts, thev should also indicate the prelerence for allotment of circle from the drop dou,n menu as there are more than one circle in those districts. In thc notes appended to paragraph Vlll candidates nere inlormed that thel rvould be selected and allotted to the circles as per the rank in Lhe ment list and as per the preference. Annexure III of the Recruitment Notihcation contains tabulated statement of instructions for filling up of the application form. Above serial no. l7 of this annexure note is appended which requires that candidate should acquaint about the present district in which jurisdiction the school he studied from l^st [o 7rh class or place of residence would fall. Upon reading of note appended to

¶35

paragraph VIll and instructions, particularly serial no.17 of annexure III, it is clear that candidate has to choose circle/district where he wants to be considered as local candidate and if he does not opt to the Iocal candidate district and opts to any other district, he would be considered only as non-local candidate against 5 %o of vacancies.

¶36

Thus, instructions are very clear. Petitioner chose to opt to Hyderabad against column- Circle/ District immediately below school details and when he entered Hyderabad as the District and since against School Education details and Local District he entered Nalgonda district as his Local Candidate district, the computer alerted petitioner by asking him "You come under 5 %o vacancies, do you want to proceed" and petitioner entered YES'. Thus, even though petitioner claim to belong to Nalgor-rda district, he u,anted to be considered in Hyderabad district onlv.

¶37

1 I . Further, at no point of time before results were announced, petitioner sought for rectification of entries made by him in thc application, assuming that under mistaken understanding said entries were made. Petitioner kept quiet during the entire selection process and only lor the first time on 14 .O8.2O2O, he made representation claiming that his candidature should be considered as local candidate of Nalgonda District against vacancies reserved for local candidate of that district.

¶38

Further, as the selections are already finalized and merit list is published, at this stage, if the request of the petitioner is accepted, it would amount to re-drau,ing the merit list, may have cascading effect and may result in deleting the name of another candidate to accommodate the petitioner. Thus, the relief sought by the petitioner would have impact on employment opportunity of others. Therefore, even assuming that there rs bona fide mistake and equitable relief can be granted to the petitioner, granting said relief to the petitioner would result in more severe consequences.

¶39

¶40

More so, on account of declaration of merit list and inclusion ol name of another person, right to secure employment has crystallized in that person and any direction issued to re-draw the merit list to include the name of petitioner will offend the right accrued to that person and may have a cascading effect. Therefore, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage.

¶41

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

SDIN,CHANDRA SEKHAR^RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// .."[,* OFFICER

¶43

To, 1 One CC to Sri^{lV. V. Praveen Kumar, Advocate} [OPUC] 2 fwo CCs t" Of For Energy,^{High Court for the State-of Telangana[OUT]} 3 One CC to Sri^{R. Vinod R6ddy,-S.C.For T.S.S.P.D.C.L. (OPUC)} 4 Two CD Copies. BC M v

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED:0210912020

¶46

t\ i? r1i
e
j,,
o 2 4 SEP 2U0 o
,!o

D P til C

¶47

ORDER

¶48

WP.No.14567^{ot 2020}

¶49

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION}

¶50

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶51

b
I

Alya Naik v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alya Naik v. The State of Telangana

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

Battapothula Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Ravula Vimala Vs The State of Telangana

Jatothu Manjula Vs The Union of India

Pilli Apparao, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

T.Mohan Kumar Vs The State of Telangana and 3 Others

T. Narasimha Rao Vs T.S.R.T.C. and 2 Others