Writ appeal filed by TSLPRB challenging a Single Judge order allowing a sports candidate and directing reconsideration of an ex-service candidate eligible under ex-serviceman quota due to delayed discharge during surgical strikes.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY
WRIT APPEAL NO: 237 OF 2020
Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patentpreferred against the Order Dated 071O112020 in WP'No.16693 of 2019 on the file of the High Court.
Between:
Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board(TSLPRB), Rep. byits chairman Havins office at DGP office complex, ,ifr[?,-?1_f]X[B!t$Sirr ro.u
AND
...*arrorDENTS/RES'.NDENTS1 To4
lA NO: 2 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in supportof the petition,the High courtmay be pleasedto suspend the order dated07.01.2020 passed in W.P. No. 1693 of 2020'
Counsel for the Appellant: SRIM. V. RAMA RAO
Counsel for RespondentNos. 1 & 2: SRIC. DAMODAR REDDY
Counsel for RespondentNo' 6: SRI D. POCHAIAH
Counsel for RespondentNo. 4: GP FOR TOURISM
The Court delivered thefollowing:JUDGMENT
h
o T
and
The H,rn'be Sri Tustice A.R aiashekcr RerLI'r s(/ 2
IUdgment: (Prr thc I t.,n'blc the Chicf Jtstict Sarish ChandraSharma)
The present \flrit Appeal isarising out of orderdated 07.OL.2O2O, passed bytheleamed Single Judge,in V.P.No.16693of 2019, directing the State Govemmentto consider the case of respondent No.2-Bairisheui fuhok for appointment rc the Po$of Sub-Inspector of Policeunder the ex-servicernanquota with all consequential benefits.
2
i7
army, and was discharged oniy on 30.05.2019. FIe submitted his candidature after obtaining NOC from the Army authorities and merely because he was discharyed after expiry of one yrar, his case was not considered under the sporrs quota. The learned Single Judge, as a very hi.per-technical approach was adopted by the State Govemment in rejecting the candidature of respondent No.2, has allowed the \flnt Petition.
under:
"This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"to issue a writ or order or direction more panicularly one in the nature of \y/rit of lvhn&mus declaring the action of t}re 5th respondent in not following the selection procedure contemplated in G.OJ!fs.No.74, Youth Advancement Tourism and G-rlture (Spons) Depanment dated 09.08.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent for the post of Stipendiary Gdet Trainee (SCI) Sub Inspector of Police pursuant to the Nodficarion Rc.No.89/fuct./ Admn-1/2018, dated 31.05.2018 as bad, a$itnry illegal and violative of Anicles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constiturion of India and consequently direct *re respondents to provide 2olo of reservation to the Meritorious Spons Penons by implementing the guidelines issued under G.O.lvls.No.74, Youth Advancement, Tourism and Culrure (Spons) Depaftment, dated 09.08.2012 and Para 21 B (i0 of Notification dated 11.05.2018 in the interest ofJustice."
Fleard Sri CDamodar Reddy, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N{.V.Rama Rao, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
It is the case of the petitioners *rat they are meritorious spons persons. As per the notification, 2o/o of the posts are reserved in favour of meritorious sports persons. Since the respondents are nor implementing G.OlIs.No.74, datad 9.8.2012, they have filed the present writ petition.
During pcndeno' of rhe rvrit petirion, I.A.No.2 of 2019 i: trlcd scckinq rurreudrncnr of rhe praler irnd the samc is ordcred t(xlrl\ \ l(ir :ep,rrarc ordcr.
Lc,lrned counsel appearing for the petidoners conrended rhar 2nd pedtioner is a meritorious sports person and also an Exservice man and he served in the Iodian Army as Jawan from 06.03.2000 ro 30.06.2019. But, his case was not considered under Ex-servicemen quota on the ground that as per the noti[rcation dated 31.5.2018, Ex-servicemen were supposed to be relieved within one yeat from the date of noti6.cation. At the tjme of issuance of the notification, the 2nd petitionet was serving the lndian Army and discharging his duties in Jammu and l(ashmu and he should have been discharged from the Indian Army by 31st N{arch,2019. Due ro the surgical sftikes, the 2nd petitioner could not be clischarged from the lndian Army within the umc stipuhted rn rhe notification and he was discharged from dury on 30.0(r.2019. lr is furthcr contended that the 2nd pcririoncr has sr.tbmittcd his applicauon through proper channel aftcr obtainrng 'No ()bjtcrion (-cruficare'. llur the respondenrs havc not considcrccl the casc. of the 2nd peutioner on the grountl that hc was dischrrrged from the Indian Army after expiry of one l,eur from the date of noti6cat.ion. It is prayed that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition direcung the respondenrs ro consider dre case of the 1st petitioner under medrorious sporrs persons quota by stricdy following G.O.Ms.No.74, dated 9.8.201,2 and further dtecting the respondents to considet the case of the 2nd petitioner under Ex-servicemen quota.
Leamed Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that as far as 1st petitioner is concemed, in the nodFrcation, it is cleady mentioned that the respondents would foLlow only marks and no where it is stated that they would follow G.O.Ms.No,74, d.ared 9.8.2012. Since the 1st petitioner has not secured the marks as set out in the noti[ication, his case rvas not considered. Insofar as the 2nd petrtioner is concerned, hrs case could not be c<;nsidered under Ex-servicemen quora as he rrls drscharged from thc Indian Army afrer one year from rhc darc of noriticlruon.
I-l.rvurg considcred the rrval submissions made by rhe learnccl coLrnscl r-,n cirhcr side, rhis (lourr is of rhe vicu, rhat insofrr as the lst petirioncr, his case cannot be considercd under mcrironr_,us
i-_'
sports quota, as he has not secured the marks strpulated Ln the notification. Hencc, this Courr is not inclined to grant any relief to the 1st petitioner.
As fat as the 2nd petrtioner is concerned, his clum undet medtotious sports quota is also rejected. However, his case can be considered under Ex-sen icemen quota. As his case u,as rejected on the grouncl thar hc could not be rclier.ed from the Indian,.\rmv bv 31.3.2019 duc ro surgica) strikes, this Court had directed the lcarncd ,'\ssistant Soliciror General ro get instr-uctions as tcr rvhethcr rlre r\rmv Pcrsonncl u.crc rclieved drrnng the period of surgical strikcs or nor. l.caltcd ,\ssrsranr Solicrtor(icncral hacl protlucccl thc plocecdings <lntecl 20th i)cccrr.rbcr, 2019, rvhcrcrn rhc 4(-omn.rrndrng()fficcr, 177 Nlcdiunr llcgirncnt. clar.ifiecl thar rlre t\rmt Pcrsonnel corrld not ltc clischargcd fror.n thc Inclirrr r\rm,r'duc to the surgical stlikcs ancl ^t tlrc tcle!'ant point oI rinrc. thc 2nd petitrorrer r,, as drscharging his cltrties in.lan'uru arrcl l(ashmu. ln r,ierv of the said clarificauon, this Court is of rhc vics' that the case of the 2nd petitioner can be considered under Exser!-icemen quota.
Accordrngly, *re Writ Petrtron is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the 2nd petitioner fot appointment to the post of Sub-Inspectot of Pohce under Exservicemen quota with all consequential benefits. In respect of the 1st petitioner, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs."
5
Judge hasdirected rhe respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of respondent No.2 herein- Bairishetti Ashok for appoinment to the post of Sub-inspector of Police under the guise of ex-serviceman quota with al1 consequential benefits. This Court does not find any reason to interfete with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Admission is declined.
(-onsequentlv, Interlocutory Appl-icadons, pending if arry, stand
disposcd oI
SD/-CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY'
sEcTloN oFF|CER
ro,
MBC
;_--
HIGHCOURT
DATED:1111112021
E s.IAl'E
(
29 ttN?$?n
ct)
,.J
* r' /
JUDGMENT
WA.No.237 ot2020
DISMISSING THEWRIT APPEAL
WITHOUT COSTS,
%-
G)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the Single Judge's order allowing Thota Anusha to contest recruitment under meritorious sports quota.
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the Single Judge's order directing consideration of Bairishetti Ashok's candidature under the ex-serviceman quota despite delayed discharge due to surgic
Whether the delay in discharge from service due to national security missions affects eligibility for the ex-serviceman quota.
Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board
Thota Anusha
Bairishetti Ashok
State of Telangana
Satish Chandra Sharma
A. Rajasheker Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
