Remanded

K.Shalini v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC27 Aug 2021WP/7869/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging termination of police constable services due to erroneous intra-caste selection. Court set aside order, finding no fraud by petitioner, and remanded for consideration to fill Scheduled Tribe vacancy.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 02.04.2019 set aside matter remanded to respondents for reconsideration for appointment in a scheduled tribe vacancy within eight weeks.

K.Shalini Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE ST r. o";,; i 3l!,95 l5h3ji3,f"Ti^{Ar HYDE RABAD}

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY_SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWo rHousAND AND rweriv o,.rJ

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT P ETITIO NNO:7 869 0F 2019

¶6

Between:

¶7

ig*"il'Hffi^{#llt%ilf i{fr #,}}tr#rffi ;HFf,,},,,:$lidffi}

¶8

AND

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

1 BllLTJr':lilyrJ,.?fepresented^{bv the Principal secretary (Home), secretariat}

¶11

2 Telangana state Lever porice. Recruitment Board, represented by its chairman, D. G. P off ice Comptex, Lakrd ir<apool,'H;;;'b;i." "'''

¶12

3 superintendent of^porice, District porice Headquarters, Mahabubnagar District.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High co*t ,'uv "ou pGaseo to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ "C.tto.of Y?,ld?qtr . _dectaring^{theorder ot the 3rd} respondent in A1lEstt.263/MBNR/2018-2019, dated 02.o4.zo1g terminating the services of the petitioner as contrary to the Verification certificate issued by ihe 2d respondent and as illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable and in violation of the principles ot naiuraijustice and in violation of the Article 16 and 21 and 31 1 (2) of the bonsiitrtion of lndia and to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in c.No. 41/Estt.263/lvlBNR/20.18-2019, dated 02.04,20'19.

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 201 I

¶16

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 suspend the operation of the order of the 3rd respondent in c.No:A1/Estt.263/MBNRJ2ois-2019, dated 02.04.2019 by reinstating the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶17

IA NO: 2 0F 2019

¶18

Between:

¶19

State of Telangana, Represented by the Principal Secretary (Home), Secretariat Buildings at Hyderabad.

¶20

Iela[Sqr]-? State Level Police Recruitment Board, represented by its Chairman, D.G.P Office Complex, Lakidikapoot, Hyderabad.

¶21

Superintendent of Police, District Police Headquarters, Mahabubnagar District.

¶22

,..PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶23

¶24

AND K.Shalini,^{d/o RarruluNayak.aged about 27 years, .,} residino^{P.C3577, Midjil} at^{choppalakuntaPolice} station, rhanda. Mahabubnagar hamlet^{o+ nunu} "'#;t"&"noJiieimindtion)',^{g rl"iil"itinir]kovv'guda tvlandal' lvlahaboobnagar} District.

¶25

...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER

¶26

Petition^{under Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit^{fired in support ot in" p"tition, in. Hi-gn cgyrt may be preasedto vacatethe} interim orderdated^{15.04 2b;;"p;;t;iin l'A lio'1/201einwP No 7869/201I}

¶27

Counsel^{for the Petitioner:SRl'G U R C PRASAD}

¶28

counsel for the^{Respondents:GP FOR HOME}

¶29

The Court^{madethe following:}

¶30

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABI{INAND KUMAR SIIAYTIJI WRIT PETITION No.7869 of 2019

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Wlit Petition is filed for the following substantive reliel

¶33

"...to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more pafiicularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandanrus declaring the order of the 3 rd respondent in C.No.A l /Estt. 263/MBNR/20 I 820 1 9 dated 02.04.20 19 terminating the seruices of the petitioner as contrary to the Verification Certificate issued by the 2nd respondent and as illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiable and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the Articles 16 and 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent in C.No.A1/Estt.263llVIBNR/20182019 dated 02.04.2019."

¶34

Heard Sri G.U.R.C.Prasad, leamed^{counsel for the petitioner} and the learned Special^{Govemment Pleader appearing for the} respondents.

¶35

It has been contended^{by the petitionerthat she belongsto} ScheduledTribecommunityandsheisfullyeligibleandqualifiedto be appointed^{as Police Constable. She fur'ther contended that the} respondents^{have issued recluitmentnotification for filling up the} posts of Police Constables^{on 31.12'2015and she has responded to} the said notification.

¶36

Learned counsel^{for the petitioner contendedthat at the time} of filling the^{application form, the petitionerdid not understand the}

¶37

\.P.\o^{'1869 ot l0l9}

¶38

column^{as to whethershebelongsto Aboriginal Tribe and as such'} eroneously^{she hasmarkedas 'Yes'' He furthercontendedthat the} petitioner^{pafiicipatedin the selection process and she secured} decent^{marksand she was appointed as Police Constableon} 01.3.2018^{and she was inductedinto training from 29'5'2017 to} 28.02.2018^{and she has successfullycompleted the trainingThe} respondents^{have issued a show cause noticedatecl 18'3'2019to the} petitioner^{stating as to why her appointmentas PoliceConstable} should^{not be terminatedas she doesnot belong to Aboriginal tribe} but she^{only belongsto Scheduled Tribe and the petitionersubmitted} a detailed^{explanationto the saidshow cause noticeon 30'3'2019} stating^{that by mistake, she has erroneouslyticked 'Yes' to the} columnastowhethershebelongstoAboriginaltlibe,butthe respondents,^{without consideringthe same'have terminatedthe} services of^{the petitionervide impugnedorder dated02'4'2019'} Challenging^{the same,the presentwrit petition is filed'}

¶39

Leamed^{counsel for the petitioner contendedthat admittedly'} the petitioner^{belongsto ScheduledTribe community and she has} already^{undergonetrainingand even if the selection of the petitioner} is cancelleci^{by way of termination of her services' the respondents} would not^{be filling up the said post earmarkedfor Aboriginaltribe} and therelbre,^{the case of the petitionercan be considered for} continuation^{of Police Constableas the petitioner hasalready} undergone^{inductiontraining' He further contended that the}

¶40

)

¶41

AKS..I W.P.No.i869 of 20 t9

¶42

peririoner has not played any misdeed or fraud 0r misrepresentation and it is an error on the part of the respondents in selecting the petitioner as a Police Constable in the vacancy earmarked for Aboriginal tribe. Learned counsel therefore contended that appropriate orders be passed in the Writ petition setting aside the impugned termination order dated 02.4.2019 and let the matter be remanded back to the respondents for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner for continuation as Police Constable

¶43

Learned Govemment Pleader appearing for respondents contended that on verification, it has come to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner does not belong to Aboriginal tribe and after issuance ofshow cause^{notice, the respondents haverightly} terminated the services of^{the petitioner. He furthercontended that} Clause-27 of the^{notification clearly states that if any selectionis} made emoneously, the^{respondentsare entitled to cancel the selection} including termination^{of the servicesof the selectedcandidate. In} view of Claude-27 of^{the notification,the respondentshave rightly} terminated the^{servicesof tl-re petitioner' Therefore, there are no} merits in this^{u'rit petition and the sameis liable to be dismissed'}

¶44

This Cout1,^{having regard to the rival submissionsof learned} counsel for^{both the parlies,is of the consideredview that the} petitioner has not^{played any fraud or misrepresentationand the} respondents^{have erroneously selected the petitioner as a Police} Constable in^{the vacancy earmarked for Aboriginaltribeandthe}

¶45

AKS.] 4 \.P,No.?869^of2019

¶46

petitioner^{has already undergonetrainingsuccessfully and at this} stage, it^{woul'J be too harsh to terminate the servicesof the} petitioner.^{Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the} impugned^{orderdated 02'4'2}lg is liable to be set aside'}

¶47

With the^{above observationsand directions'the writ petition is} disposed of^{and the impugned orderdated O2'4'2019 is set aside and} the matter is^{remanded back to the respondents for reconsidelingthe} case of the^{petitionerin any of the vacancieswhich are earmarked} 1br schedLrle tribe^{andpass appropriate orderswithin a reasonable} period of time, preferably^{within a period of eightweeksfrom the} date of receipt of a copy of^{this order. No costs.}

¶48

g. As a sequel, the miscellaneous^{petitions pending, il any, shall}

¶49

stand closed.

¶50

SD/. T,KRISHNA^KUMAR ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY'

tr--

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

'1 . The Principal Secretary^{(Home)' State of Telangana' Secretariat Buildings at}

¶57

, il3Zi:?*an.^{TelanganastateLevel Police Recruitment Board'D G P ofrice} Co.pf ", Lakidikapool -Hvderabad'

¶58

1. The^{Superintendent} "'^{P;ii;;:6;uictPolice Headquarters' Mahabubnagar} District.

¶59

1. 6;;'c'a^{to Sri. G U R c Prasad' Advocate[oP1Jc1} 5. Two^{CCsto GP f"' H;;"' ft;c""t t* ti'" Statlof Telansana [oUTl} 6. Two^{CD CoPies'}

¶60

PIU 1 tf

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710812021

ORDER

WP.No.7869 of 2019

'1t\ ; STAI.
1
.2- y
lc,) 02 sEPz0tl c)
:\ "Y
\ Ic,F-qtr c

¶66

Disposing of tlhe WP Without costs,

¶67

K.Shalini v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Shalini v. 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

Sri Siva Sai Agencies Vs The Food Corporation of India and Another

Bokka Sree Rama Krishna Vs The State of Telangana

M/ s Lakshmi Narasimha Warehousing Partnership Vs Union of India

M.Venkata Ranga Prasad, Vs The State of Telangana

Mittapally Govardhan Vs Sri G. Srinivasa Rao

Nenavath Devender Vs The State of Telangana