Dismissed

Banoth Laxman, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Nov 2024WA/1144/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of appellants for Veterinary Assistant posts in scheduled areas. The Court upheld that vacancies reserved exclusively for local Scheduled Tribe candidates in agency areas cannot be considered by non-local ST candidates.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications stayed.

Banoth Laxman, Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^3413I

¶2

l I I

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETry

¶9

WRIT APPEAL NO: 11 44 0F 2024

¶10

writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters patent preferred Against order Dated 01-02-2023 in W.P.No.20408t2019 on the fite of the High Court. Between:

¶11

'l- Banoth.. Laxman, S/o. panthulal, Aged about 20 years, Occ ; Student,

¶12

^{Bratmallakujnta, penubally Mandal,KEammam Oistrict.}

¶13

1. lVladhuker Jadav, S/o. Thulasi Ram, Aged about 29 years, Rlio.H.No.i_49, Rajura Village, Wankidi Mandal, Adilabaj District. .....APPELLANTSMRIT PET|TIONERS No.1 & 3

¶14

AND

¶15

'1. The State of Telangana, rep by its principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Telangana State^public Service Commission, Nampally, Hyderabad rep by its Chairman.

¶17

The Director of Animal Husbandry Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

Badavath Suresh,, S/ o. Baru, r'r",aa, (e"iiafi::["3,-'flilljREsPoNDENrs lVahabubabad District.

¶19

(Not necessary Party in this Appeal) ...RESPONDENT/PETtTtONER No.2

¶20

|.A.NO:2 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under section^,l51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the impugned judgment of Learned Single Judge, dated. 0i.02.2023 in W.P. No.20408 of 2019 forthwith, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶22

Counsel for Appettants : SRI^pRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU

¶23

Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : Gp FOR ANTMAL HUSBANDRy Counsel for Respondent No.2 : SRI M.RAM GOPAL RAO, SC FOR TSPSC Counsel for Respondent No.4 : - The Court made the following JUDGMENT : -

¶24

HON'BLE^SI].I JUSTICE^{ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} ANf) HoN'BLE^sRl JUSTICE^{r-eiurNARAYANAALlsHEl'TY}

¶25

WRIT^{APPEALNO.11 440F 2024}

¶26

TUDGMENT:^{(per Hon'ble Sri lttstice Ahhinnnrt KtrmarSllr.uilr)}

¶27

This Wrir^{Appeal is filed aggrievedby the orderpassedby} the learned^{sirgle Judge of this Court in W P No 20408 of 2019'} dated^{01 02.20i13}

¶28

Heard^{Siri Chikkudu Prabhakar'learned counsel for the} appellants,^{iea.rned Government Pleaderfor AninralHusbandry} appearing^{for respondent Nos l& 3' and Sri M Ram Gopai Rao'} learned^{Stanc irrg (lounselfor 'ISPSC appearingfor respondent} No.2

¶29

It has^{been contendeclby the appellants that they are fully} eligible^{and qualifled to be appointedas VeterinaryAssistants} and the^{res;pondent-PubiicServiceCommission has issued} Notification^{No 30 of 2017dated02'06'2077invitingappiications} for the Post^{of VeterinaryAssistantsin all 541 vacani:ies rt'ere} notif ied^{anrl the aPPellantsare the membersbelongingto}

¶30

AKS,J & LNA,J ttA No.1l44 ot)Dt 2

¶31

Scheduled Tribe Communiry and they have responded to the said notification and participated in the selection process and the appellant no.1 secured 174 marks, appellant No.2 secured 137 marks and respondent No.4 secured 1g3 marks. Even though the appellants were meritorious, respondent_public Service Commission has not considered their cases for appointment to the post of veterinary Assistants and considered the ress meriiorious candidates for thc, post of Veterinary Assistants.

¶32

4 Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-I,ubric service Commission in not considering their cases for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistants, even though they have secured more marks, appellants have approached this Court by filing W P No.20408 of 2079 and the learned single Judge dismissed the said Writ Petition ttirle order dated 01 .02.2023, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants.

¶33

Learned counsel for appellants had contended that there are stiil un-filled vacancies of Veterinary Assistants. He further contended that iearned single ]udge ought to have directed the respondent-Public Service Commission to consider the cases of

¶34

&-..^-*.. ira. ,iri.

¶35

.lAJrli-.\li it,1 \a 11.1 o[:t):1

¶36

¶37

the appellants^{irL the unfilled vacanciesof Veterinary Assistants} meant^f or^{loca iScheduled Tribecandidatessince ther are} members^{belongingto the ScheduledTribe candidates Therefore'} appropriate^{ord,:rs be passed in the Writ Appeal b)' setting aside} the order^{dated 01 02.2023passed by the learned single Judgein} W.P.No.20408ct2O.|gandfurtherdirecttherespondentJ)ublic Service^{Commissionto consider the cases of the appellan ts for} appointment^{as \reterinaryAssistants in the unfilledvacancies'}

¶38

Learned^{Standing Counselfor respondent No'2 had} contended^{that as per the Notif icationNo 30/ 201 7'dated} 02.06.2017,^{the posts ofVeterinaryAssistants inr\nimal} Husbanclrl'^{Department shall be filled up in the Scheduietlareas} of Telangana^{Sitate' only by the localmemberso[ the Scl-reduled} Tribes,^{notwithstandinganything contained in any other Order'} RuIe or Law^{in force in accordance with the G O'N{s No 64' Social} {elfare^{(V) Department, dated04 04'1988and as Per the said} G.O., all the^{prosts in the scheduled areasough t to be fi Lied up} u,ith local melnbers^{of the Scheduled Tribes only 'fhe appellants} are Schedulcct^{J'ribe candidates,but not local rnembersof the}

¶39

Ak's,J & /.ti/1J W,1 L'o I I11 o!284

¶40

¶41

Scheduled areas. Thercfore, the learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition observing that the Veterinary Assistant posts in scheduled areas are liable to be fiiled up with the local Schecluled Tribe candidates only. Therefore, appellants do not have any right to be considered to the posts, which are 100% reserved in favour of the local Scheduled Tribe candidates in the agency area. Therefore, there are no rnerits in the writ petition and same is Iiable to be dismissetl.

¶42

This Court, having considered the rival submissions of both the parties, is of the consiclered r.iew that as per the notification dated 02.06 2017, the posts of Veterinary Assistants in Animal Husbandry Deparhnent in agency area are iiable to be filled up with o,ly by thc local schedured ]'ribe candidates and as per the G.O.Ms.No.64, dated 04.04.7ggg and when the posts which are reserwed exclusively for the local scheduled area candidates in a schedule area, thc question of considering the cases of the appellants against those vacancies would not arise and thus, the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Therefore, this Court is not incrined to interfere

¶43

<br>

¶44

tt:../,i.\IJ tt I ., 111 ai )A)1

¶45

4 I

¶46

¶47

with the ordel dated 01.02.2023 passed^{by the learncdsingle} Judge^{in V\r.PNIo.20408of 201.9.Writ Appeal fails anc'l liabl': to be} dismissed

¶48