Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Thripurala Suresh

Telangana HC8 Nov 2021WA/63/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Appeal filed by State authorities against the Single Judge’s order in WP No. 6751 of 2020, which directed the induction of a sick trainee into subsequent police training batches with seniority protection, finding no fault in the trial court’s reasoning.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; subsequent order of Single Judge upheld directing inductment and seniority; interlocutory applications dismissed.

The State of Telangana Vs Thripurala Suresh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

H'GH COURT FOR THE ST AT HYDER,fJTDOF^TELANGANA

¶3

MONDAY HE EIGHTH DAY AF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND rWErrrri ONi-''

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO: 63 OF 2021

¶8

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against Order dated 1110812020 in WP No 6751 ot 2020 on the file of the Hiqh Court.

¶9

Between:

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt, Home Department, BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad, Telangana

¶11

The Director General of Police, O/o Director General of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, O/o Commissioner of^{Police,Basheerbagh,} Hyderabad

¶13

...A',ELLANTS/RE.'.N DENTS

¶14

AND

¶15

Thripurala Suresh, S/o Somaiah^{Aged.22 years, occ.PoliceTrainee - Chest} No.eS+, Ri/o. H.No.5-57, Thonda,^{Mdl tnriumalagiri,Dist.Suryapet-508223Regd} No.132'1209, SCTPC^{(AR) (Men)}

¶16

..RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶17

lA NO: 2 oF 2021

¶18

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} operation of the orders^{dated11/08/2020 passedin WP No 675112A20}

¶19

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI M. V. RAMA RAO}

¶20

SPL. GOVERNMENT^PLEADER

¶21

Counsel for Respondent:^{SRI RAMESHCHILLA}

¶22

The Court delivered the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶23

¶24

¶25

The Hon'ble The Chief Tustice Satish Ch^andraSharma and

¶26

If t Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Raiasheker Redd)' V'rit Appeal No.63 of 2021

¶27

JUdglqellI: (Prr the I Ioorblc the Chie f Justice Satish Chandra Shann.r)

¶28

'l hc l)rescnr appeal is arisinq our of ()rclcr. clatccl 1 1 l)ti.2020, passecl bv thc learncd Sinulc f urdgc in \'.P.\o.6;:l1 of 2020.

¶29

'1 he f acts of tl're case reveal that an adr.crtis ernclt r \ lrs issr.red in rhe year 2018, inviting applications for rhe post of Coristabie in the l-Iome Department of tl:re State o[ Tciangar-ra. the respor-rdent/employee (u,rit peuttoncr) provecl his rvorth in the process of selection. I Ie u,as selectecl as SC'f lLescn,e Police C-onstable (AR) and ,uvas depr:ted for trainins bl assigning Chest No.854 ancl Registlation No.132120!t. T1're training started on 25.01.2020. 'fhe .-cspondent,'cmpkl cc becamc sick rvhilc on training ancl nra,s pass-prrrtecl on 12.0/1.2020, iniuallv for a period of six ciays. Florveve r, his n-re dical leave r.r,as extenclecl fion-r 1g.04.2020 to 22.042020. Tl-rus. he rvas on medical leave for eleven da,s. F1e reported back to the Acadernl, afrcr availing the medicai lear.e. Holever. he was served rvith Memorandum da19c1 29.01.2020,,nforming him that he was pass_portecl out o[

¶30

¶31

r\cademy and as he was ou leave on medical grounds for eicven days, he has to be under quaraurine for a period of 2g days meaning thereby, his total absencc rvouid be of 39 dar,s. He rvas also advised to undergo training in the next barch. 3. The most important aspect of the case is that after 2018 til1 date, no further advertisement l-ras beer-r issued inviung applications for the flexr batch. The respondent/employee, being aggrieved by the acrlon of rl-re appellants/authorities, immediately came up before this Court by frling W.P.No,6151 of 2020 and by interim order dared 22.0 5.2020, the appcllants / ar.rt1-ro rities rvcrc clirected^tcr permit the respondent/etnpiovee to ioin^{back thc training.} 'I'he appellants did not compl,v witl-r tl-re order passed bv the learned Single Judge . On^{tl-rc contrall'-, thcy filed an} application tor^{vacatrngthe interun order. LearnedSingle} Judge^{had finailydecidedt1-re Writ Petitionon merits'Tl-rc} order passed by^{the learnedSingle} Judge^{in Paragraphs 17 to} 21 reads as undet:

¶32

From the^{above dcctsions, itemerges that} arbitrariness^{in Stateaction, even whete the tulcs} vest discredon in^{an authontyis impermissible'} Tl-rough authotit'^{isentrded toexerciserts} discteuon, sucll^{exetcisemust be lvcll considercd}

rnil -upported lrl^{rersonsrnd nort-intcrlircntris} onlv thus^{far and no further' 'I'irere can be no} ltrbbr:r- stamping^{of admrrustrativc authoriN action} rner-.t:iy bccitLlsc^{hc has clisctetiontrl take a vicrv'} \i he:rever, a decrsion^{is n-rade in exercisc of pos'ets} vested in the^{authoriry, it must be suppottcd bv} rcasrro-s recorded in^{the otder and uniforlnlv} applrccl to all similarly^{siuateclper--sonsln thc casc} on 1r ancl, rwo sirnhrly^{situated traineesate ueatcd} differcntlv, one^{v!'as al]owedto resulnettairungancl} zrnothcr denied. Such^{course isplainl,vnot} pernrissible. f^iurther, it is elementary^{that whenever} an luthority vested with powet takes a^clccision affecung a persofl, such decision trtllst be supported bv reasons spelt out in the order, llca:ons in support of the decision cannot ren'rain in thc arrtcchamber of the nrincl of the decision rnaiiing person.

¶37

\lhenever a dccision of the admrrustrauvc riuthorirv is testc'ci bcforc the rvrit Cr-rurt, in excrcisc oi pos,cr of juciicral tcvierv, its lcglLLtr, is cxtmincrl bi, 1lo1ln11 into thc clocumcnt as it reads but not bv going into thc- record nor Court can assess thc rlunrl of thc clecisiorr mahng authoritv.'I'he rcasons ior thc decision cannor be supplemented in thc iornr of an affidavit. No justification is shorvn whv pcutioner was not allowed to resume training. \'ithout supporting material, no assumpnon can bc rnacie to suspect a per'son as rnfected with r.irus ancl cleni resumpuon of uaimng on that grouncl. '1 hc ordcr impugned cloes not mect the paramctcr-s of a r.alicl decision making proccss and cannor stancl the test r;l^judrcial scruunv,

¶38

¶39

1 9.^'i'tis leaves to thc^{issucoI grantir-rg rclicf to tl-ro} pctrd<lrrer.^'I hc total^{trarmrrc of a Stipencllart' (,adcr} 'I'rlincc Policc ConstaL,lc is n:inc tnonths.^'lhc training cotnt.ncncccl^{on 25,01.2020 Out oi ninc} months of ttairting.^{scr-cnllr>nthsoI trainingis} already ovct.^{()ut of this sevenmonths peutionct} has l<>st four morlths^{and onlv nvo monthsof} training is left.^{Pctitroflcr cannot makcup thc} training pcrod^{lost in the tematningperiodof} ttaining course.^{FIe rvould be missing cc>ntinuity of} the training.^{As the police forcerequires higher} standard of^{physicalfitness and alertness, the} requirement to^{undergofull uainingcannotbe} dispensed with^{and respondentscannot be directed} to adrmt^{him to retnzuning scssion of the ttaining'} Therefore, by^{force he has to undergo trarning} whencver a^{new trairungsesstoncommenccs'} Flowcver, as all^{this hashappcnedfot no fault of} him, he has to^{be con-tPensatcd.}

¶40

I-earne<l^{counscl rcPrescfltillgtl-re responderlts} informs the^{(.ourt thatsclcctions ate finalized ior} recruitmcnt of^{Trainee Prl[cc ('onstablcsrn Spccial} Policc llarralirlrrs^{:rntl soott a[lcl c,rtnlllction} 'rf training^o I the^{ptcscntbatch. tl-rcv wouldbc} inducted for^{ttairung. I-lc submitsthat the} petitioncr^{car-rbe subiccted to tr:ainirlg with that} batcl-r.

¶41

21 . Thc writ^{petition isallorved,the order} impugncd is set^{aside tnd tlle follorvirrg ditecuons} are issued:

¶42

(1) The petiuoner^{should be inductedfor} training along^{with the Stipendian'(ladetTtainee}

¶43

¶44

¶45

Policc Constables^{ofSpecial Police Battalions} rvhcnevet the^{rraining commencesto them;}

¶46

(2)⁽⁾ⁿ successful^{completiono[ uainingand} passing all the^{tests conductedbv the Acadcm',} petidoner shall^{be given the protectionof senkrriry} and other benefrts^{treating him as part ol rectuits} who were subiected^{to training ftom 25} '01"2020; and

¶47

(3) Since As for^{no lault of him, petitionerlost} opporrunity to.undergo^{uainiog with his batch-} mates, was made to^{sit idle till the next uaining} commences and that^{he is not entided to takeuP} any other employment^{during the intertegnum} period to eke out^{a living, he cannot be left in the} lurch.^'fherefore, the^{resPondents are dtectedto} connnue to pay stipend^{payable to a Eainee ull the} petidoncr is admitted^{to uainingin the next batch'} 22. Reforc parting wrth^{this case, Ideem it} necess,rry to make the^{following observalions:}

¶48

¶49

(i) As the physical uaining^{is rigorous, it is} possible that some^{trainees may suffer injuries and} become sick. If a trainee suffers^{some health} problems, he is treated^{withinthe Academy and/or,} for the reasoos recorded, if it^{is not possibleto} treat a trainee within the^{Academy,he would be} referred to a hospitai as per^{the procedure or} allowed to avail medical leave'^{The ttainee can be} pass-ported to undergo^{fteatmentoutside the} Academy. Once a person undetgoes^treatment outsrde the Academy/goes^{out of the Academy on} mcdical leave and reports bach,^{invariablythe} pcrson should be admitted to training and then^he should be dealt with in accordance^{with the nrles}

¶50

and guidellnes formulated [ot. rhe pu.qpose, bur candidate cannot be refused to be admitted to rrainirrg, such as on rhc grounds mcnrioncd in rhc impugned order. It may be true drat some trainees mav fake injun, or rilness onlv to avoid intense training. l(/hen such situatron ar:ises, it should be handled by follorvrng due process, Lrur, it cannot be gcneraLzed.

¶51

¶52

(u) Thc recruitment does not takc place even' vear and ir-r frct after mole than nvo ycars, the preseflt recruitment l-ras tal<en place. For anv reason, 1[ a trainee misses the traioing with hrs batch-matcs, hc would have to rvart till the next tccruitment tai<es place and commencement of trairung lvhich is uncertarn. After having been selected to the PoLice lrotce, if^a person^is sent^out by the Acaderni, askrng hitn to tcsut.ne^{his training} whenevet the next ttairung^{batchcommcnces,hc} would have to be idic,^{and a free man lcft to fcnri} hirnsell as he does^{not teccivecver-r stipendr"'l-rcn} l-re does not undcr'go rrailling^{ancl cantrot tal<e lql} an),othct cmpkx'rncnt.^{I'urrhcr'as icllc a potsrln is} not conducive to thc^{ciisciplit'tct:equireci itl thc} Police liorcc.

¶53

(iir)^{'l'hetcfbre. it nravbe necesslrvto put111} placc a proccclure^{ro clealrvitl.r such co ntit.tgcl.tcics} ancj to cnsutc^{to thc extent pclssibic' ctlntinue trl} train to such Pel^sons.

¶54

Learned^Single Jr-rdge^{l-ras duected the appellantstcr} permit the^{respondent/empioyeeto comPlete his training} and in^{open Coutt, learned Special GovernmentPleaderhas}

I I

///

stated^that illlrsuant^{to the ludgment delivered b'v the learned} Single Jr-idge,^{the respondent/employee was sent on uaining} and he^rvas Permitted^{to reioin'}

¶61

'1-he rmpugned judgment of this Court^{wasdelivered rn} an extraorciinarv^{situauon wherethe entire Globe rvas facing} ancl is facing^{the COVID-19pandemic'Latge number of} emplor,ees tl.rrougl-rout^{India rvere infectedu'ith COVID-i9} panclcrruc^ar-rd thev^{have been granteclleave atlcl tl-re periocl} has becn rrcated^as penod^{sPent on dntl' in most of the} orqanisations. Ir-r the plesetlt^{case also, ott llccount of} (-()\ 1D-1') panclcn-ric, and on accoullt of insistcnce of the appellants ro undelgo compr-rlsorv^{c1-rarantit.tc[or a pcriod of} 28 davs, the total absence of training rvas 39 days and therefore, dre learned Single Judge was certainly^just-ifred as the trair-ring was going oo, to permit the r:espondent/employee to complete his training. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the learncd Single Judge has also granted senioriry ro the r:espondent/ emplovee.

¶62

6, In the considered opinion of this Court, respondent/employee has to be given senioriry as per the lules gor.,erning the fteld. However, rhere will be no loss of

Senlol'lf)' on account of the fact that hc u/as out ot training for ferv days only and it was rhe appellants/emplover, who forced the respondent/en-rplovec to be ur.rder quar,andflc for a pclod of 28 days. Therefore, this Court does nor find ar.r_v

¶68

reason to interfere rvith order passecl b), tlre learned Single

¶69

Judge^{No case for interference is made out ifl the matrer.} 1. \'rit Appeal rs, accotdingl),, dismissecl. Conscquentlr'.

¶70

Interlocutory Applications, pending if atry, stand dismissed.

¶71

SDi.CH.VENKATESWARULU DEPUry REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// t/"

¶72

SECTION OFFICER

¶73

¶74

One CC to Sri M V Rama Rao, Special Government Pleader [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri Ramesh Chilla Advocate IOPUCI

¶75

Two CD Copies

¶76

One Spare Copy

N/BC

ti'Dr

HIGH^COURT

DATED:^0811112021

STAIE
{
q ,';,
f, i
2l $s-ill
o
-,i
* .._+

¶83

JUDGMENT

¶84

WA.No.63 ot 2021

¶85

DISMISSING THE^{WRIT APPEAL}

¶86

WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Telangana v. Thripurala Suresh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. Thripurala Suresh

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

T Yakaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Y.Srinivasa Rao and 6 others Vs The State of Telangana

E Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital and Research Centre Vs The Presiding Oficer

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Vs P. Ramaswamy

State of Telangana and 3 others Vs G.Sathyawathi and 42 others