Dismissed

Dodda Mamata v. The Telangana Resdential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (Trei-Rb)

Telangana HC3 Mar 2022WA/58/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tandem Writ Appeals challenging the single judge's order setting aside a junior lecturer's appointment. The court upheld the lower court decision, dismissing appeals as the appointee had higher merit but ineligible for the reserved quota due to lack of unused unreserved vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeals dismissed; Appointment set aside as per lower court; Liberty granted to submit representation for future vacancies.

Dodda Mamata Vs The Telangana Resdential… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY,THE THIRD^{DAY OF N/ARCH} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY TWO}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATTSH CHANDRA SHARMA} AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI}

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO:^{465 OF 2020AND58OF2021}

¶7

W.A.No.465 ol 2020

¶8

writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters PatentPreferredAgainst the order} Dated.'d4togt2020,^{in WP.No .947of 2020 on the file of the High Court'}

¶9

Between:

¶10

The Telanoana Residential Educational,^{lnstitutions RecruitmentBoard (TREIRB)} i"J ,*G""i nip^{By its ExecutiveOfficer (Convenor) D S S Bhavan, Masab Tank'} Hyderabad.

¶11

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^{No.1 in}

¶12

WP.No.947/2020

¶13

AND

¶14

Saluvadi Sumalatha,^{D/o Pentaiah, Aged about36 years,Occ:Contract} nesioentiat Teacherⁱⁿ Telangana^{Social welfareResidential Educational} High Scfroot and Junior College,^{Tadwai villageand Mandal, Nizamabad} District.

¶15

.... RESPON DENT/WRIT^PETITIONER

¶16

2 Dodda Mamata, D/o and age^{not known, Junior Lecturerin Zo-ology,} Telanoana Minoritv Residential^{Educational lnstitution Junior College,} NagaLm Village, Nizamabad^{lr,4andal,NizamabadDistrict.}

¶17

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT^No.2

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

Petition Under section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the Highcourtmaybe pleasedto} suspend the operation of the order^{in wP No.947of 2020, daled0410912020} passed by the Hon'ble Learned Single Judge,^{pending disposalof the above writ} appeal.

¶20

IA NO :1^{OF 2021}

¶21

Between:

¶22

Saruvadi Sumaratha,^{Dio pentaiah, Aged about !6_yearsocc:contract Residential} reacher in Telangana^{s".i;i'w;;;;;"{J.,0-".,tirretucatronal High Schooland} i']friiJ?.ri#liZi*riuirl,s"^{and tr/andal'Nizamabad District'}

¶23

PETITIoN^{ER/RESPONOENT No l}

¶24

AND

¶25

Board

¶26

1 The Telanqana^{Residential Educational'lnstitulio.nsRecruitment} D S.S liiiErn"ei^{'i.J-"noir,"r.n"b ev -iii Executive officer (convenor)} iinruin Masab^{Tank, HYderabad'}

¶27

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶28

Dodda^{Mamata, D/o and age not known' Junior Lecturer in Zoology'} relanoana Minoritv^{nJlia??'ii"ieJuiatlonatlnstitution Junior College'} ff;t'#Viiag;,'fu^{LJ,iu"o r/andal'Nizamabad District'}

¶29

...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT

¶30

Petition under^{Section1 51 CPCpraying.that.in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in suppJi l'i ir'" p1iitl#,ir'" High Court may be pleasedto} ;;;p;;;1;;^{auove writ'appeal from 1t1ot2o21to an earlv date'}

¶31

Counsel^{for the Appellant : THE ADVOCATE GENERAL}

¶32

Counsel^{for the Respondent No'1 : SRI'J'R'MANOHAR RAO}

¶33

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2 : SRI'CH'VENKATRAMAN}

¶34

WRIT APP^{EALNO:58oF 2021}

¶35

Writ Appeal^{underclause 15 of the Letters Patent appealpreferred againstthe order} dated04/09/2020passedi"w.pr.r".g4Tof2O2OonthefileoftheHighCourt.

¶36

Between:

¶37

Dodda Mamata.^{D/o.Ashok Kumar' aged} -about^{35 vears Occ JuniorLecturer} Zootoqv, Tetangana^{Hrrinoiitv'iiijiiO'"ntijf Educational'lnstitutionJunior College'} 'N"d;iJ; t i r"r r,i's ;lN ir. b i o vt a n d a t, N i z a m^{b a} d^{Di st ri ct'}

¶38

.'.APPELLANT/RESPONDENT^No'2

¶39

AND

¶40

1 TheTelanganaResdential-EducationallnStitutionsRecruitmentBoard(TREI-RB), Rep.by^{its Executrve driJJ'i'"Cilri;;niiij' o s s Bhavan' ll]asab rank'} Hyderabad. Saluvadi Sumalatha,^{D/o. Pentaiah, aged about 361ears. occ. Contract} Residentiat^{reacher,l" re#d;;';"$'ciJ ilTJijre-iesiaential, Educational}

¶41

High School^{and Junior CollegeTadwai Village and Mandal, Kamareddy} District

¶42

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT

¶43

NO.1 AND^{WRIT PETITIONER}

¶44

IA NO: 4 0F²⁰²¹

¶45

¶46

Petition Under^{Section 151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{tireo in suppJrt oitf.l" p"titlont[e High Court may -b"^Pllut?d'o} suspend the^{operation;T"iilo'Je'made in w PNo 947 of 2020dated} Oa.tig.ZOZO,^{pending disposalof the above writ appeal}

¶47

l.A.NO:^{5oF 2021}

¶48

Between:

¶49

Saluvadi^{Sumalatha. D/o Pentaiah, Aged about 36-years.occ:Contract Residential} Teacher^{in Tetanganaso",li'rfiiirl"'i".io"r,tirtE'ducational High schooland} j ifr ii, i c"ri"'s;;, tZl*Ziuliag" and Mandal' Kamareddv^District'

¶50

..PETITIONER/RES^{PONDENT No2}

¶51

AND

¶52

1 Dodda tr/amata,^{D/o and age not known, Junior Lecturer in Zoology'} i;;;;;;; M;;ritv nesioelniiat^{Educational lnstitutron JuniorCollese'} N;;;',"# vlil;s;,'fu^{zima oao lvanda l, N izama bad District'}

¶53

...RESPONDENT/APPELLANT

¶54

2.TheTelanganaResdentialEducationallnstitutionsRecruitmentBoard(TREl.RB), Rep bv^{its rx"J'liiuJb-rf,;;;i6o;t;;or)D S S Bhavan'l'4asab rank'} Hyd era bad.

¶55

..,RESPONDENT/RESPONOENT

¶56

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCiroumstancesstated in the affidavit^{titec in support of the petrtion'the High Court may be pleasedto} pr"p"* ,f.r" above^{Writ Appealfrom 1l1Ol2O21to an early date'}

¶57

Counsel for^{the Appellant : SRI'CH'VENKATRAMAN}

¶58

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1 : GP FOR SERVICES'I}

¶59

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'2 : SRI'J'R'MANOHARRAO}

¶60

The Court made^{the followingCOMMON JUDGEMENT}

¶61

HON'BLE THE CHIE F JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶62

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAN D KUMAR SHAVILI

¶63

W.A.Nos.465.of 2O2O & Sa of 2O21

¶64

COMMON JUD GMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhiland Kumar Shauitil

¶65

These two Writ Appeals are filed aggrieved by the order passed in W.P.No .947 of 2O2O dt.O4-Og-2020.

¶66

Heard the learned Advocate General

¶67

appearing for the appeliant in W.A.No.465 of 2O2O and Sri Ch. Venkat Raman, learned counsel for the appellant in W.A.No.58 of 2021 and Sri J.R.Manohar Rao, learned counsel for the 2,,d respondent in both the Writ Appeals.

¶68

The facts as stated in W.A.No.58 of 2O2l are hereunder discussed for the convenience.

¶69

4 The appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in W.P.No.947 ol 2O2O, had contended that she has filed the Writ Petition contending that she 1S a member, belonging lo Zooe-Y and she is also a member belongs

¶70

¶71

to Schedule Caste community.^{It has been further} contended by the appellant^{that she and the Writ} Petitioner/2"a respondent^{lvere fully eligibleand} qualified to be appointed to the^{post of Junior Lecturer} under Telangana Residential^{Educational Institutions} Recruitment Board^(for short^{TREI-RB)and the} TREI-RB issued recruitment^{notification for filling up} various posts of Junior Lecturers^{in various disciplines} vide Notification No.3 of 2018^{dt.31.-O7-2018. The} appellant had further contended^{that she and the 2nd} respondent have responded to the^{said recruitment} notification and she has secured^{moremarks than the} 2"d respondent and she was declared^{to have secured} rank No.35 whereas the 2"d respondent/Writ^Petitioner was declared to have secured rank No.49.^{As the} appeilant is belonging to Zone-Y,^{she has given 1't} option to Zone-Y and 2"d option to^{Zone Yl.The} TREI-RB has selected and appointed the^{appeilant as} Junior Lecturer in Zone-Yl against SC^{(W) roster point.}

¶72

The Writ Petitloner/2"d respondent has challenged the selection of appellant by liling W.P.No.947 of 2O2O before this Court and the learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition and the selection and appointment of the appellant as Junior Lecturer in Zoologi in Zone-YI was set aside and the TRtrl-RB u,as directed to redrau, the merit list for the post of Junior Lecturer in Zone-YI comprising local candidates of Zone-VI only, to the vacancies earmarked to be filied up by loca1 caldidates of Zone-YI and if the 2"d respondent is found to be the next meritorious candidate, to appoint her against the said post Aggrieved by the same, the TREI-RB has filed W.A.No.465 of 2O2O and the 2"d respondent in Writ Petition has filed W.A.No.SS of 2021.

¶73

The appellants had further contended that the posts which were notified by the TREI-RB were to be filled up by lollowing A.P. Public Employment (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct

¶74

¶75

Recruitment) Order,^{1975 (for short the Presidential} Order') and the^{posts of Junior Lecturersare to be} filled up in the ratio^{of 30:70, and 3Oo/o are meant for} unreserved^{and'TOok are to be fitled up by the local} candidates.

¶76

Admittedly in the^{instant case, as the} appellant in W.A.No.58^{of 2027 has secured more} marks than the^{2nd respondent/Writ Petitioner, the} TREI-RB has rightly^{appointed the appellantas Junior} Lecturer in Zoologt.^{Therefore,appropriate ordersbe} passed in the Writ Appeals^{by settingaside the orders} of the learned Single^{Judge in W.P.No.947 of 2O2O} dt.O4-Og'2020^{with all consequential benefits'}

¶77

Learned Advocate^{General appearing for} 1n TREI-RB had contended^{that theappellant} W.A.No.S8 of 2O2l was^{rightly appointedin the post of} Junior Lectr.rrer in Zoolog^{as she has secured more} merit than the 2"d^{respondent/Writ Petitioner and as}

¶78

¶79

¶80

per the options of the appellant, the appellant was adjusted in Zone-yl. Therefore, learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the seiection and appointment of the appellant and appropriate orders be passed in the writ Appeals by setting aside the orders of the learned Single Judge and uphold the appointment of the appellant as Junior Lecturer in Zoologr.

¶81

Learned counsel for the 2.d respondent in W.A.No.58 of 2O2I/Writ petitioner has contended that the Writ petitioner belongs to Schedute Caste communiqr and also a member belonging to Zone_yl and there were more meritorious candidates than the appellant in W.A.No.Sg of 2O2I in Zone_yl and the unreserved vacancies were to be filled up with more meritorious candidates than the appeilant and admittedly in the instant case, there u,ere three meritorious candidates than the appellant in Zone_yl, and the persons who have secured more merit than the appeiiant have to be adjusted against unreserved

¶82

¶83

category and^{fill up next TOok of the vacartcies with} loca-l candidates^{by followingthe Presidential Order'}

¶84

.g.^{The learnedcounsel.. for the 2"d respondent} had further contended^{that admittedly, in the instant} case, the appellalt^{is a member belongsto Zone-Yand'} she has to be^{considered only in Zone-Yl against SC} (W) roster point and^{the appellant could not have been} accommodated^{against 3Ook of vacanciesmade lor} unreserved candidates.^{The appellant is not coming} within the meritorious^{categoryto be consid'ered under} unreserved as^{there were three more candidates having} secured more^{merit than the appellant and when the} unreserved^{posts are to be filled up by both 1ocaI and} non-local candidates,^{the appeltant couid not have} been appointed^{in Zone-Yl under unreserved category'} Therefore, there are^{no merits} in^{the Writ Appealsand} the same are liable^{to be dismissed'}

¶85

¶86

This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parties is of the considered viev,, that the learned Single Judge has given a specific finding that there were three more meritorious candidates than the appellant (in W.A.No.5g of 2O2I) in Zone-VI and when those three meritorious candidates were available, they ought to have been adjusted against the AO% mea_nt for unreserved category and there was no fourth vacancy to be filted up with unreserved category i.e. forming part of 30% for unreserved category. When there is no such post to be filled up under unreserved category beyond three, the TREI-RB could not have appointed the appellant (in W.A.No.58 of 2O2l) as a Junior Lecturer in Zoologr tn Zone-VI ignoring the legitimate claim of the 2na respondent/Writ petitioner as admittedly the 2,d respondent/writ petitioner belongs to Zone-vr and she has to be adjusted in the ZOo/o qwota as prescribed by the Presidential Order and the learned Single Judge

¶87

¶88

has rightly set^{aside the appointment of the appellant'} However, the learned^{Single Judgegave liberty to the} appellant to submit^{an application to the TREI-RB to} consider her appointment^{as a Junior Lecturer in any} existing vacancy^{and it is for TREI-RBto consider the} case of the appellant^{and pass appropriate orders in} any existing^{vacancy' The learned Single Judge has} dealt with the case^{very elaborately and givencogent} reasons while allowing^{the Writ Petition fiIed by the 2"d} respondent/Writ^{Petitionerin the following manner:}

¶89

"22. At this stage,^{teonted counsel} for respondent no.2 contended^{that there are unfilled} uacancies and^{she can be continuedin seruiceeuen} after accommodating^{the petitioner.No opinioncan} be expressed on^{thtis plea. As per the settledpnnciple} of law on recruitment^{and operationof meit list, it is} clear tLtat meit^{tist has to be draunto tl'Le extentof} uacancies notif.ed.,^{keepinginmind pinctple of} reservation as per social^{reseruation and as perthe} Presidential Order. Once meit^{tist is exhaustedand} att the candidates^{includedin the mertt tist are} appointed, the recruitment^{processcomes to end' If a} person on appointment does^{not join the post or joins,} but relinqui,shes the^{post, theg becomeresultant} uacancies ond reqtirdd^{to be notified uheneuernext}

¶90

¶91

recn)itment takes place. A next meitoious candidate can stake clatm against notirted uacancies, tf no appotntment order uas tssued"/ prouisional selection and appointment is cancelled/ cand.id.ate appointed found^to be ineligtbte to fill a parttcular slot (as in this case). It is for the lst respond.ent to ueifg and take appropiate action.

¶92

Houeuer, libertg is granted. to 2nd respond.ent to fi.le^{an application} before the 1"t respond.ent to consid.er her appointment as Junior Lecturer (Zoologg) in any erts ng uacancA and. it is for the lst respond.ent to consider such request. It is made clear that the dectsion in this case is confined. to uatidttg of appotntment of 2"a respondent against uacancA reserued J'or SC (Women) in Zone_VI though she is not a local candidate of Zone-VI.

¶93

The Wit petition is accordingtg a owed. ,t he selectiott and appointment of the 2ud respondent as Junior Lecturer in Zoology in Zone-VI ts set aside. The 1't Respondent is d.irected. to redraw the merit list for the post of Junior Lecturer [Zoologg] in Zone_VI compising local candidates of Zone_VI onlg, to the uacancies earmarked to be filled up bg local candidates of Zone-VI and. if the petitioner b found to be the nert meitoious candid.ate, to appoint her against the said post. pend.ing miscellaneous petitions, if ang, shall stand closed.. ,

¶94

Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well reasoned order of the learned Single

¶95

¶96

¶97

Judge. Both the Writ Appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed. However, it is once again reiterated that as it was held by the learned Single Judge, it is always open for the appellant in W.A.No.58 of 2O2l to submit representation to the TREI-RB to consider her case against any of the unlilled vacancies and upon such representation being made, the TREI-RB shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1aw. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shali be no order as to costs.

¶98

s d/-^{c H} bvEEJtlSF^:E',t+HiH

//TRUE COPY'

M-

SECTION^{OFFICE R}

To 1. The Executive officer (convenor), Telangana-R^esidential Educational Institutions^{Recruitment;;;;iiihiiReilbs s Bhavan'tr'4asabrank'}

¶103

, !IX";t3t"^{rHE ADV..ATEGENERAL, Hish court ror the state of} - i"-rinornu at Hyderabad loUTlHyderabad loUTlloUTl

¶104

i"-rinornu at Hyderabad loUTlHyderabad loUTlloUTl

¶105

1. Two ics^{to GP ron sEAVic'dS-l High court for the state of relangana at} Hvderabad. [OUT]

¶106

4 iji,".,"#i;^{dir.C n.ver'u<nrRAMAN' AdvocateIoPUC]}

¶107

5, Two^{CD CoPies}

¶108

One^sparecoPY

\ f\V <w

HIGH^COURT

HC,J^{& AKS'J}

DATED:03/03/2022

1 5iAia c..
3
lo
(,)t- 2I t{[R 2t??
'/,
i<br>

¶116

COMMON^JUDGMENT

¶117

W.A.NOS.465^{0F 2020 AND 58 0F 2021}

¶118

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT APPEALS}

¶119

WITHOUT^COSTS.

Dodda Mamata v. The Telangana Resdential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (Trei-Rb)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dodda Mamata v. The Telangana Resdential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (Trei-Rb)

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

M.E.Satya Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Indian Medical Association Telangana State Vs State of Telangana and 16 others

Mohammed Mohiuddin and 2 others Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

M/s K.C.S Constructions Vs The South Central Railway(Scr)

M/s. Mariam Constructions Vs The South Central Railway

M/s. Kasturi Constructions, Vs The South Central Railway ( Scr)