Dismissed

The State of Telangana v. Ashok Singati

Telangana HC7 Dec 2021WA/76/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the State of Telangana challenged the Single Judge's order directing consideration for resultant vacancies. The High Court upheld the lower court's decision regarding the appointment process and disciplinary benefits. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal stands dismissed. The respondent is entitled for all consequential benefits except back wages.

The State of Telangana Vs Ashok… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA^{AT HYDERABAD}

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶3

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 76 OF 2021

¶7

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters^{PatentAppeal preferred against the} orderdated o5l11t2o2o^passed inw.P.No.13890^{ot2O2O onthefileof the High court.}

¶8

Between:

¶9

The State of Telangana, rep.^{through Principal Secretary, Departmentof Home,} Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶10

The Telanlaria State Level^{Police Recruitment Board, Rep. by its Chairman,} D.G.P. Office Complex Lakdikapool,^Hyderabad.

¶11

...Appel lants/ResPondents

¶12

AND

¶13

Ashok Singati, S/o, Rayamallu,^{Age 39 years, Occ: Ex-Servicemen, R/o'Gandhinagar,} R.K.Puram, Near Army Public School,^Secunderabad -⁵⁰⁰⁰⁵⁶

¶14

...RespondenUWrit Petitioner

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 202'l

¶16

Petition under Sectlon 151 cPC^{prayingthatin the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High court may be pleasedto suspend the} operation of the orders dated^{05-'1 1-2020 passedin W.P.No.13890/2020by the} learned Single Judge^pending disposal^{of the mainWrit Appeal.}

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRl. M.V. RAMAR,AOr}

¶18

(SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI^{S.RAHUL REDDY}

¶20

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶21

THE HON'BL^{, THECHIEFJUSTICE} RA AND TI .E HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICEN. TUI(q,RAMJI}

¶22

WRIT APPEAL^{NO.76 of 2O2l}

¶23

JUD GMENT: |'er^{tlLe Hon'blellrc ChiefJustice Scllis'Ir ChafldroShrlrlrta)}

¶24

The^pr lsent^{writ appealis arising out of an order} dated 05. ll^{2O2O passedby the iearned Single Judge in} W.P.No.138')0^{of2O2O (AshokSingati v'State of} Telangana^{e nd another).}

¶25

The fe cts of^{the case reveal that the respondent} before this Court,^{Sri Ashok Singati, who isan} ex-servicem an,^{submitted an appiication pursuant to the} Notificationdated3l.05.20lsforfiilingupthepostsof Stipendiary Cadet^{Trainee Police Constable (Civii)' He} has secure 1^{74 marks in the overall selectionprocess} and the sel:ct^{list was declared, on 24'09'2O19' The last} candidate^r elected^{was also having 74 marks'However'} no appoinl ment^{order was issued in his favour' The} appointmer^{Lt order was issued in respectof some other} person whr was also^{having 74 marks, as he was senior} in age. Tl e^{respondent before this Court preferred the} writ petiti( n stating^{that his case could not have been} rejected in the manner^{and method it has been done by} the State^r md he should^{have been offered appointment} in the res rltant^{vacancies. It was also broughtto the}

¶26

notice of this Court that certain persons who participated for selection for the posts of Sub Inspector of Police as well as for the posts of Constabie were included in both select lists and later on as they have joined the post of Sub Inspector of Police, the vacancy created in the select list of Police Constable ought to have been given to the writ petitioner. He came up before this Court by filing a writ petition and the earlier writ petition i.e., W.P.No.23469 of 2019 was disposed of by an order dated 11.11.2019 directing the State Government to decide the representation of the ex-serviceman and the State Government has rejected the representation by an order dated 25.01.2020 stating that the resultant vacancies would be added in the next Notification. The writ petitioner/respondent in the present appeal has preferred the second writ petition and the undisputed facts reveal that the ex-servicemen who participated for the post of Sub Inspector of police as weil as Constable were considered for the posts and two distinct select lists were prepared, one for the post of Sub Inspector of police, which was published on t2.O7.2O19 and the second list was in respect of police Constable published on 24.09.2019. Two candidates, namely, Sri Annireddy Konda-l Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, were

¶27

included in both the^{lists i'e., inthe list of Police} Constables^z s well^{as Sub Inspectorsof Police and later} on, Sri Var^{gara Rajinikanth was appointed as Sub} Inspector of Police,^{leaving one post vacant in the cadre} of Poiice Cor: stable.^{The writ petitioner prayed before the} learned SingLe Judge^{that the aforesaid vacarlcy cannot} be treated ar, filled^{up vacancy and could not have been} forwarded tr the next^{selection. The learned Single} Judge has^{rllowed the writ petition' The operative} portion of th,: ord.er^{passedby the learned Single Judgeis} reproduced^{e s} under:-

¶28

"Tl is Court,^{having consideredthe rival submissions} made by t Ie learned counsel^{for the respectiveparties, is of the} considerec view that^{the respondentshave initiallyprepared} selected li: t of^{PoliceConstables andas per the contcntion oI the} Special Gc r'ernment^{Pleader,the nameso[ 708 candidates u'ere} mentioned in the^{zone of considerationin the cadre of Police} Constablet and^{theselected iist oIPolice Constablesuas} published only on 24.Og.2Olg.^{lf the selectedlist ofPolice} Constabler^{was published subsequent to the selectedlist of S lof} Police, thi: Court^{is unableto unclerstandas to how the names of} these two :andiclates^{i.e., Sri Annireddy KondalRedd1" and Sri} Vangara R tjinikanth^{were shownin both theselectedlists of S I'} of Police s^{well as PoliceConstableslfthe abovesaidtwo} individuak i.e.,^{Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and SriVangara} Rajinikant^{r were already been shownin the selectedlist of S lol} Police, th(:r^{the respondentsoughtnot to have reflected their} names in^{ee selectedlist of PoliceConstables' Even accordingto} the Specia^{GovernmentPleader, oneSri VangaraRajinikanthwas} selected^{fc - the} Post^{of S.t of Police,after hisexplanationhas} been accel^{ted by the respondents, theyought to haveconsidered} the case^(' the^{petitioner,whois equallymeritorious' whohas} secured 7z marks^{as securedby Sri Annireddy KondalReddyand} Sri Vangar r Rajinikanth,^{the question of rejecting the caseof the} petitioner n terms^{of G.OMs No 544, dated 04 12 1998 wculd}

¶29

not arise. In the instant case, no appointment order was issued to Sri Vangara Rajinikanth as a^police Constable. Only when appointment orders are issued to the selected candidates and if such a candidate joins the said post, then the application of G.Q.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 would arise. But, in the instant case, as Sri Vangara Rajinikanth was never issued appointment order, application of c.O.Ms.No.544, dated 04.12.1998 would not arise, at all. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for appointment to the post of police Constable in the resultant vacancy caused due to the selection and appointment of Sri Vangara Rajinikanth as S.l. of police.

¶30

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of police Constable in the resultant vacancy caused by Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, who was selected and appointed as S.l. of police, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of eight (g) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed.,,

¶32

This Court has carefully gone through the documents on record and undisputedly, pursuant to the Notification dated 31.05.2018, two select iists were prepared, one for Sub Inspectors of police on l2.OT.2olg and second for the Police Constables on 24.Og.2olg. Two persons, Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, were included in both the lists and later on, one of them, Sri Vangara Rajinikanth, was appointed as Sub Inspector of police. The undisputed facts also reveal that Sri Annireddy Kondal Reddy and Sri Vangara Rajinikanth a_lso received, 74 marks in the

¶33

-')

¶34

process of selection for the^post of Police^Constableand as Sri Vr mgara Rajinikanth^{was appointedas Sub} Inspector^,,f Police, the^{post could not have been treated} as fiiled u: by any stretch^{of imagination and in those} circumstar.ces, the learned^{Single Judge u'as justified in} allowing tl e writ^{petition. This Court does not find any} reason to nterfere with the^{order passed by the learned} Single Juc ge. The respondent/ex-serviceman^{shall be} entitled for all consequential benefits^{except back wages.}

¶35

The writ appeal stands dismissed.^The miscellane rus applications^{pending in this writ appeal, if} any, shall stand closed. There shail^{be no order as to} costs.

¶36

¶37

To,

¶38

s D/-c H.vEJ'lj$rE:HtTHhH //TRUE coPY/' arcrtoMrrtcen

¶39

Two the State of Te CCs to S^{angana at HYderabad' i M.V. Rama Rao,Specnl luu Government Pleader, llHighCourt for} 2. ijlJibiJ's'ri i^{Rlnrt neo'ov,Advocite [oPUC]} 2 Two CD CoPie;

¶40

One Spare^{Co lY} CHR fus S

HIGH COURT

DATED:071'l2li'.021

JUDGMENT

W.A.No.76 of 2021

5r4
(r ' rc' r<br>( c
)-"
d
() 2 1 DE82$l:
),,

¶46

DISMISSING TItE WRIT^APPEAL WITHOUT COS TS,

¶47

QtY '
'tx \ rz
CI

The State of Telangana v. Ashok Singati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. Ashok Singati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Eshwaraiah Vs The State of Telangana

The Deputy Managing Director and Corporate Development Officer Vs Chimata Sudhakar

Mr. Adimulapu. Raja Vikram Vs The Chief Secretary

M/s Nakoda Chemicals Ltd., Vs Union of India

M/s. Nakoda Chemicals Ltd. Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Dr P Krishna Malakonda Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others