Allowed

Gorukanti Vinay Kumar v. The Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited

Telangana HC3 Jun 2024WP/2246/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed two writ petitions challenging the TS SPDCL's practice of treating 33.33% women reservation as vertical rather than horizontal. The court held that treating women reservation as vertical violates Supreme Court precedents and directed the corporation to apply horizontal reservation principles.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' writ petitions were allowed; respondents were directed to strictly apply the Horizontal Reservation rule for women candidates and make appointments accordingly, without earmarking spe

Gorukanti Vinay Kumar Vs The Telangana… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[^321e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD^{DAYOF JUNE} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE^{T.MADHAVIDEVI}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO :^{38124 OF 2022 AND22460F 2023}

¶7

WPN 0.381240F 2022:

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gundu Shankar, S/o Dhanrai,^{aged 28 years, R/o H.No 11-1-561, Bhoiglda} XJman,-nghapria, Nampally^{ManEat,Hyderabad - 5q001Telangana State BC-} A, HT No. 301408. Marks. 43,^{Rank.11 7, Hyderabad District.}

¶10

...pE,,oNER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Telangana State Southern^{Power Distribution Company Limited, having its} Corporatebffice at H.No. 6-1-50,^{Mint Compound' Hyderabad - 500063' rep. by} its Chairman and Manaqinq Director

¶13

Tne Chief General ManIgdr,^{(HRD), TS SPDCL, Corporate Office at H.No.6-'l-} 50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad^{- 500063.}

¶14

Thb Principal secretary,^{Energy Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶15

Tlie State of Telangana, General^{Administration Department,Secretariat,} Hvderabad, rep. by its Chief^Secretary.

¶16

Tlie^principal Secretary,^{Women Dev6lopment and ChildWelfare, Senior Citizens,} Disabled Welfare Depirtment,^{State of Telangana,Secretariat,Hyderabad.}

¶17

Kavva Shaniqaram, b/o^{NotKnown, aged about 21 yearc,C/o O/o The} Suobrintendiio Enqineer, TS SPDCL,^{SCADA Circle, GTS Colony, Kalyan} Nabar. Enaqalda IHvderabad- 500045,^{Telangana State, BC-A, H.No'320896,} [ aks. SS, Rank .1033,^{HyderabadDistrict.}

¶18

( R 6 is impleaded as^per C.O. dt. 1810412023^{io l.A} 1120231

¶19

...REspoNDENrs Petition under Article²²⁶ of^{the Constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleasedto} issue any appropriate writ, order^{or directionone particularly one in the nature writ of} mandamus declaring the^actionof the^{Respondents,in treating the Women} Reservation also as the Vertical^{Reservation, instead of treatinglt as the Horizontal} Reservation, pursuant of the^{NotificationNo.2l2O22 dated 09-05-2022, for the nodified} Sub-Engineer (Electrical)^{Posts, under} the^{guise of implementingthe 33.33percent} reservation in favour of^{women candidates,in termsof Regulations 22 and 22-Aof} APSEB Service Regulations^{read with} Rules^{22 and 22'Aof TelanganaState and}

¶20

Sub-ordinate-Service Rules, 1996, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to the Dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Dania Vs. Ra.lastan Public Service Commission and others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3127 and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and others reported in .2010⁽¹²⁾ SCC 2O4, and a the case of K. Venkatesh and Another Vs- Government of AP and Others reported in 2009⁽⁶⁾ ALT 483 and consequently read down the Notification No.212022, dated 09-05-2022, in so far as Women Reservation is concerned, set-aside the 100, point roster prescribed in Regulations 22 and 22-A of APSEB Service Regulations read with Rules 22 and 22-A of Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, in so far as women roster points are concerned, and direct the respondents to follow the principles of Horizontal Reservation for Women Candidates, in the 33.33percent reservation in favour of women, without earmarking any roster^points for them and by following the^procedure indicated by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases reported in . AIR 2007 SC 3127 and 2O1O⁽¹²⁾ SCC 204, by counting the meritorious women candidates also against the number of special reservation^quota for women and accordingly consider the cases of the Petitioner and other Aspirants, for appointment, based on their merit, against the notified Sub-Engineer (Electrical) Posts, pursuant to the Notification No. 212022, daled 09-05-2022

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶22

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 direct the respondents to follow the principles of Horizontal Reservation in the 33.33% reservation in favour of women, by following the principle of sufficiency, i.e. the reservation of Women Candidates shall be adjusted^{proportionately} in the respective Category to which the Women Candidate belongs to, without earmarking any roster points for them, without applying the carry forward principle to the left over vacancies due to non-availability of eligible and suitable Women Candidates, by following the procedure indicated by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases reported in. AIR 2007 SC 3127 and 2010⁽ 12) SCC 204, against the notified Sub-Engineer (Electrical) Posts, pursuant to the Notification No. 212O22, dated 09-05-2022, pending the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:^SRI CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶24

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 1 to 3: SMT. K. UDAYA SRI}

¶25

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 4: GPFORGENERAL ADMINISTRATION}

¶26

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 5: GP FORWOMEN DEVELOPMENT &} CHILD WELFARE

¶27

WP NO: 2246OF 2023

¶28

Between

¶29

Gorukanti Vinay Kumar, S/o Krishna, aged 22^{years, R/o H.No. 13-236,Y€dagiri} Gutta, Yadadri-Bhongiri District Telangana State.^{PIN- 508 115. BC-A, H.T.No.} 303162, Marks. 45,^Ran k ' 17

¶30

...PETtrtoNER

¶31

AND

¶32

The Telangana State Southern Power^{Distribution Company Limiled, havingits} Corporatebffice at H.No. 6-1-50,^{MintCompound' Hyderabad- 500063' rep. by} its Chairman and Manaqinq Director

¶33

The Chief General Manig6r^{(HRD), TS SPDCL, Corporate Office at H.No6-1-50'} Mint Compound, HYderabad^{- 500063.}

¶34

Raieshwaii Adondd, D/o^{Not known, aged about 30 years, C/o Olo The} Suberintendinq Enqineer, TS SPDCL,^{Yadadri Bhongiri District, Telangana State'} PIN - 508 11s:BC--A, H.T.^{No.301860,Marks.40,Rank.48}

¶35

...REspoNDENrs Petition under Anicle 226 of^{the Constitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavit filed therewith, the HighCourt may be pleasedto} issue any appropriate writ, order^{or direction one particularly one in the nature writ of} mandamus declaring the action of^{the Respondents,in treating the Women} Reservation also as the^{verticalReservation, insteadof treatingit as the Horizontal} Reservation,^pursuant to the^{NotificationNo. 212022, dated 09/05/2022,for the notified} Sub-Engineer^{(Electrical) Posts, under the guise of implementingthe 33.33%} reservation in favour of^{women candidates,in terms of Regulations22 and 22-A of} APSEB Service Regulations^{read with Rules 22 and 22-A of Telanganastateand} sub-ordinate service Rules,^{1996, as arbitrary, illegel and violative of Articles 14, 16} and 21 of the Constitution^{of lMia and contraryto the Dicla laid down by the} Honorable supreme court^{in the case of Raiesh Kumar Dada vs. Rajastan Public} Service Commission and^{others, reportedin . AIR 2007 SC 3127 andPublicService} Commission, Uttaranchal^{Vs. MamtaBisht and others reported in . 2010(12) SCC} 2O4, and in the case of^{K. Venkatesh and Another Vs. Government of AP and Others} reported in 2009 (6) ALT^{4tl3 and consequentlyread down the Notification No- 212022'} dated 09/05/2022, in^{so far as Women Reservationis concerned, set-asidethe 100} point roster prescribed in^Regulations 22 and 22-A^{of APSEB ServiceRegulations}

¶36

read with Rules 22 and 22-A of relangana state and sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, in so far as women roster points are concerned, and direct the respondents to revise the Selection List by following the principles of Horizontal Reservation for Women Candidates. in the 33.33% reservation in favour of women, without earmarking any roster points for them and by following the procedure indicated by the Honorable Supreme Court in the cases reported in _ AIR 2007 SC 3127 and 2O1O (12) SCC 204, by counting the meritorious women candidates also against the number of special reservation quota for women and accordingly consider the cases of the Petitioner and other Aspirants, for appointmeni, based on their merit, against the notified sub-Engineer (Electrical) Posts, pursuant to the Notification No. 212022, daled 091o5t2022

¶37

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶38

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 direct the respondents to revise the selection List of sub-Engineers (Electrical) in respect of Yadadri-Bhongiri District, by following the principles of Horizontal Reservation in the 33.33% reservation in favour of women, by following the principle of sufficiency, i.e. the reservation of women candidates shall be adjusted proportionately in the respective category to which the women candidate belongs to, without earmarking any roster points for them, without applying the carry forward principle to the left over vacancies due to non-availa bility of eligible and suitable women candidates, by following the procedure indicated by the Honorable Supreme court in the cases reported in : AIR 2007 SC 3127 and 2010 (12) SCC 204, against the notified Sub_ Engineer (Electrical) Posts, pursuant to the Notification No. 2t2o22, dated og-os-2022, pending the above writ petition

¶39

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA

¶40

Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SMT. K. UDAYA SRI

¶41

Counsel for Respondent No. 3: --

¶42

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶43

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

¶44

W.P.Nos. 38124 of 2022 and 2246 of 2o23

¶45

COMMON ORDER:

¶46

W.P.No.38124 of 2022

¶47

In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the women reservation also as Vertical reservation, instead of treating it as the Horizontal reservation, pursuant to the notification No.2/2022, dated 09.05.2O22, for the notified posts ol Sub-Engineer (Electrical), under the guise of implementation the 33.33% reservation in favour of women candidates, in terms of Regulations 22 & 22-N of APSEB Service Regulations read with Rules 22 & 22-A of Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles i 4, 16 and 2 1 of the Constitution of India and as contrary to the Dicta laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajastan Public Service Commission and Others, reported in AIR 20O7 SC 3127 and in the case of Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and others, reported in 2OI0 (12) SCC 204 and in the case of K.Venkatesh and Another Vs. Government of A.P. and Others, reported io 2OO9 (6) ALT 483 and Consequcntly to read down

¶48

¶49

TMD'J w.P.Nos. 3a124 oJ 2022 & 2246 o! 2O23

¶50

the notification No.212O22, dated O9.O5.2O22 in so lar as women reservation is concerned, set aside the 100 point roster prescribed in Regulations 22 & 22-A of APSEB Service Regulations read u.ith Rutes 22 &,22-A of Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 in so far as women roster points are concerned and to direct the respondents to follow the principles of Horizontal reservation for women candidates and to pass such other order or orders in the interest ofjustice.

¶51

Brief facts leading to the fi1ing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is an unemployee and belongs to BC-A Community. It is submitted that he passed in Diploma in Electrical & Electronics Engineering and he is eligible for the post of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) in the respondent organization. The respondents have issued a notification No.212022, dated 09 .O5.2O22 calling for online applications from eiigible candidates for hlling up of 2O1 Sub-Engineer (Eiectrical) posts and the petitioner submitted his online application with Candidate ID No.72O17424 on 24.06.2022. It is submitted that the respondents, in the notification, have reserved 101 posts to women and only 10O posts to general category and therefore, have exceeded the reservation and have thus made more than

¶52

¶53

TIIID,J V.P.Noi. 3at24 ol2022 &, 2246 oJ 2023

¶54

5Oo/o of the reservation in favour of women candidates, ,a,hich is against the principle laid down by the Honbte Supreme Court in various decisions and including in the case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of Indial. It is submitted that as pe r the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria

¶55

Vs. Rajastan Public Service Commission and Othersz, the women reservations are Horizontal reservation and therefore, the respondents ought to have made Horizontal reservation, but the respondents, instead, have applied both Horizontal and Vertical reservations in favour of the women candidates in notif-rcation No.212022, dated O9.05.2022 and, rhus causing injustice to other candidates. Therefore, challenging the same, the present writ petition has been hled.

¶56

Similarly in W.p.No.2246 ot 2023, the petirioner therein has challenged the action of the respondents in not implementing the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (cited supra) in providing Horizontal reservation lor women candidates for the post of Sub_Engineer (Electrical) Posts in notilicarion No.212022, dated, 09.O5.2022.

¶57

| 1992 supp.{3} SCC 217

¶58

2 AIR 2oo7 sc 3127

¶59

¶60

TMD,J w.P.Nos. 3a124 ol 2022 & 2246 oJ 2023

¶61

-TII-

¶62

Sinr:e common issue is involved in both the writ petitions, the,, u'crc taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common and consolidated order.

¶63

l,carned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating thc submissions made in the writ petitions has advanced the follou,ing arguments. It is submitted that the respondent No. 1 conducted written test on 31.O7 .2022 and the results were declarcd, wherein, the petitioner in W.p.No.3g 124 of 2022 securcd 43 marks and his rank was 117 in Hyderabad District. The petrtioner in W.P.No.2246 of 2023 was a lsr ranker in BC-A Communrty and his overall rank was 17 and from the merit list, thc rankers of I to 16 did not belong to BC-A Community and even though the petitioner got 45 marks, the petitioner was not selecLed, but the u,oman candidate who got 5 marks less than the petitioner was selected by following Vertical reservation for women. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has issued the provisional selection list on 26.09.2022 calling the provisionally selected candidates for certificate verification on 15.1O.2022, 17.1O.2022 and 18. 1O.2022, but rhe peritioner in W.P.No.38124 of 2022 was not called for certificate verification and thcrefore, he liled the writ petition before this

¶64

¶65

TMD,J W.P.Nos. 34124 of 2022 & 2246 ol2023

¶66

Court on lO.lO.2O22. The petitioners claims to have been dorvnloaded the merit list uploaded by the respondent No.2 in their website and prepared the Excel Sheet of 93 women candidates who were called for ceitificate verification on 15.10.2022, 17.1O.2022 and 18.1O.2022 and according to the said chart, in respect of the Hyderabad District, under BC-A category, only two posts were earmarked for General Category (one post under 957o quota and one post for SYo quota) and three posts were earmarked for the women candidates and for all hve posts, five women candidates were called for certificate verification. It is submitted that four women candidates were appointed and one woman candidate by name Salva Namratha, the fourth ranker, who was selected under 5%o quota, has not joined her post as she was appointed as the Assistant Engineer in TS NPDCL and in the said post, one Nagula Vamshi, 13th ranker was appointed without catting him for certificate verilication along with the others. Among the four women candidates appointed, three candidates were appointed under women reservation quota and one candidate Ambati Tejashvi under General Category, treating women reservation also as Vertical reservation. It is submitted that when already three women candidates were appointed under the women reservation

¶67

¶68

TMD.J w.P.Nos. 34124 ol 2022 6, 2246 oJ 2023

¶69

quota based on their merit, the respondent No.6, Kavya Shanigaram, whose rank rn,as 1033, should not have been appointed under lvomen rcservation quota and instead the petitioner in W.P-No.38 124 of 2022, whose rank was 1 17, ought to have been appointed against the said post.

¶70

Similarly, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.2246 of 2023, it is submitted thar though he is the first ranker in BC-A Community and got 5 marks more than BC-A Community woman candidate who was selected by applying Vertical reservation to the women candidates, he was denied the appointment.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in similar matter in W.P.No.27844 <:f 2022, which rvas filed ehallenging the action of the respondents therein i.e., TSPSC in not applying the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (cited supra| to Group-I Services, this Court had passed an interim order dated 23.09.2022 and pursuant to the said interim order, the TSPSC issued the Web Note dated ll.l0.2o22 and the Chief Secretary to Government of Telangana also issued Memo dated 02.12.2022 for following the women reservation as Horizontal reservation. It is submitted

¶72

¶73

TMD.J W.P-Nos. 3Ar 24 of 2022 & 2246 of 2023

¶74

i I

¶75

that similarly, the Medical Department of Telangana State also made appointments to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeons on 15.06.2022 by following the Horizontal reservation for women by duly following the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Dafia (ctted. supra).

¶76

It is also submitted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued (i.O.Ms.No.77, GAD, dated. 02.Og.2023, deleting the vertical roster points in favour of women in the 100 points roster and for selecting the women candidates in all categories by following their social reservation quotas, limiting their quota to the extent of 33_l /3o/o of the posts. It is submitted that there is no change either in the Regulatio n 22 & 22_A of APSEB Employces Service Regulations or in the Rure-22 &" 22_A of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, but the respondent No. 1 company issued notification No. 1 of 2023, d,ated 02.O2.2023 for appointment of Assistant Engineers (Electrical), specifying that 33-l /3o/o reservation is Horizontal reservation for women. It is submitted that the action of the .,respondents in not applying the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Datia (cited supra), IS illegal, arbitrary and violative of Constitutional

¶77

¶78

TT'D.J ut.P.tios. 3a124 of 2022 & 2246 o! 2023

¶79

provisions in respect of the reservations. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliancc Llpon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

¶80

Anil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.p and Others3;

¶81

Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajastan public Service Commission and Others (cited. supra);

¶82

Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and Others (cited supra);

¶83

K.Venkatesh and Another Vs. Government of A.p. and Others4;

¶84

5, Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Otherss;

¶85

Gottumukkala Venkata Krishamraju Vs. Union of

¶86

India6;

¶87

Olga Tellis and Others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and OthersT;

¶88

D.Satyanarayana Vs. N.T.Rama Rao8;

¶89

Chandana Das (Malakarf Vs. State of West Bengal

¶90

and Otherse;

¶91

M.Sudhakar Vs. V.Manoharan and Otherslo;

¶92

Dr.(Majorf Meeta Sahai Vs. State of Bihar and

¶93

Othersrl;

¶94

3 (199s) 5 scc 173

¶95

4 2oo9 (6) ALT 483

¶96

5 AIR 2004 SC 5100

¶97

6 AIR 20l8 sc 4197

¶98

7 (1985) 3 scc s45

¶99

6 1998 (rl ALT 178

¶100

e (2020) 13 scc 4 I r

¶101

Io (2011) I scc 484 rr 2ol9 (o) sc 1376

¶102

¶103

TMD,J W.P-Nos. 3A124 of 2022 & 2216 o! 2023

¶104

Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur Vs. Mohan LaI and Othersl2.

¶105

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, supporred the stand of the department and submitted that the petitioner in W.p.No.2246 of 2023 belongs to BC-A Community and has choosen yadadri_ Bhongir as a Circle for the purpose of recruitment. It is submitted that in Yadadri-Bhongir Circle, ten vacancies were notihed, out of which, six are reserved for women and lour for men and there was no vacancy notified for BC_A General Candidate and therefore the peticioner is eligible to be considered in two vacancies earmarked for OC-General under 957o quota, OC vacancies and BC-A vacancies under 5yo quota. It is submitted that the petitioner secured 45 marks, whereas the last meritorious candidate under OC category secured 54 marks and therefore, the petitioner was not within the zone of consideration and the last rneritorious candidate was issued appointment order dared 14.11 .2022.

¶106

In respect of the petitioner in W.p.No.3g 124 of 2022, it is submitted that he belongs to BC-A Community and

¶107

r2 AIR I967 sc l6s7

¶108

¶109

TMD,J W.P. Nos. 3a124 ol2022 & 22a6 of 2O2a

¶110

had chooscn Hyderabad District as Unit for selection and he participated in the written examination and secured 43 marks and rank 1 17, rvhere as the last meritorious candiclate secured 44 marks with rank g7 belonging to BC_A General Category. It is submitted that in Hyderabad District, there are rive circles such as Ilanjara Hills, Secunderabad, Hvderabzrd Cen tral, Hyderabad South & SCADA and in BC-A Comn-runity, hve vacancies were notifted, out of which, two ^rere earmarked for BC-A General and three for BC-A (W) It is submitted that in BC-A General, candidate with 59 marks and rank 4 and 45 marks and Rank-gl were selected. In BC_A (W) Caregory, the candidates with Rank Nos.g7, 7g4 and, 133 with marks 44, 36 and 35 respecttvely, were selected_ It is submitted that the writ petitioner was eligible only against two vacancies in BC_A General and the candidates who were more meritorious than the petitioner were selected. It is submitted that all the selected candidates have been issued with appointment orders in November, 2022 and. they have joined their respectlve posts and are also working as such. It is submitted that the grievance of the writ petitioners is with regard to treating thr) women reservation as Vertical reservation instead of Horizontal reservation referring to the Honble Supreme Court judgment in

¶111

¶112

T D,J W.P.Nos- 3a124 of 2022 & 2246 of 2o23

¶113

the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (cited supra) and also public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and Othersts. lt is submitted that in the casc of Rajesh Kumar Daria, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considcring the Rule 9(3) o[ the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, wherein the said rules specifically provided that the reservatjon of women shall be treated as Horizontal reservation. It is submitted that in the case before this Court, the service regulation s of the Discom provide that the reservation in the appointments by direct recruitment made by the State Government in respect of their own services are applicable to reservation in appointment by direct recruitment in Discom also and further Schedule_Ill of the Service Regulations and part-ll thereof specifies the order of rotation in every cycle of 100 vacancies by direct recruitment and that the notification No.212O22, d,ated O9.O5.2O22 was issued strictly in terms of Rule 22 of rhe Service Regulations Part-ll r/w Schedule-lll of the Service Regulations existing as on the date of the notification. It is submitted that the writ petitioners were well aware of the vacancies notified for their community in the respective Circles and that since there was no challenge to Rule 22 & 22-A of Telangana State and

¶114

13 20 lo ( r 2) scc 204

¶115

¶116

TMD,J lc-P.Nos. 3a 124 oJ 2022 & 22a6 of 2o23

¶117

Subordinate Service Rules before the Division^{Ben<:h of this} - Court in K.Venkatesh's case, the said^{decisionis not applicable} to the case on hand

¶118

The learned standing counsel^placed reli:tnce^upon the Regulation 22 of Telangana State^{and SubordinateService} Rules, 1996 and the^proviso to 22(dl^{whichspecifies that the} claims of women candidates, shall be considerecl^{for the} remaining appointments which shall^be filled on tht:^{basis of} open competition and the number^{of appointmentsrese rved for} that category shall in no way be affected during^{thc pcriodthe} reservation for that category is in^{force.The Regulati<tn 22(e\ of} Telangana State and Subordinate Service^{Rules, 1999 provides} for appointments to be made in the order of^{rotation ir-r a Unit of} 100 vacancies- Further, he^{placed relianceupon th(r order of} this Court in W.P.No.25991 ot^{2023,dated24.O1 .2024 in the} matter of notihcation issued by^{Singareni Collieries Company} Limited, which has been^{followingthe State Government} Regulations for Rule of^Reservation in^{appointmentsand} treating the women^reservation as^{Vertical reservation and this} Court held that in^the absence of any challenge^{to Rule 22r} lw Rule 22-A and also to the notification, the^{grievancesof the}

¶119

¶120

TMD,J w.P.Nos. 3a124 of 2022 & 2246 of 2023

¶121

petitioners cannot be entertained. It is stated that in this case also since there is no challenge to Rule-22 & 22-A of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, the u,rit petitions are not maintainable. It is submitted that even the notification has not been challenged by the writ petitioners. In resp€ct of G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 1O.O2.2024, G.O.Ms.No.35, dated 13.O2.2024 , issued by the Government of Tclangana, making amendments to Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 by treating 33-l l3%o reservation for nomen in direct recruitment to Public Service as Horizontal reservation, it is submitted that the said amendments are only^prospective in nature and not retrospective and therefore, they shall be deemed to be operative only from the date of^publication in the Gazette dated 13.02.2024 and hence, are not applicable to the notification No.2 I 2022, dated 09.05. 2 O22. Therefore, according to him, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

¶122

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the only issue in these writ petitions is whether the respondents Corporation has erred in not following the^principle laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (cited supra), in

¶123

¶124

TMD,J w.P.Nos- 3a124 oJ 2022 & 2246 o! 2023

¶125

making appointments pursuant to the notific ation No.212022, dated 09.05.2022. Tlne principle of Vertical and Horizontal reservation has initially been explained by the Hon,blc Supreme Court in Lhe case of Anil Kumar Gupta and Others Vs. State of U.P, and Others (cited supral. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the reservations in favour of socially and educationallv backu,ard classes of citizens would fall within the meaning of Artrclc ls(a) of the Constitution and against every Vertical reservation, the Horizontal reservation in favour of the women was to be made, was to be a compartmentalised Horizontal reservation. In para- 18 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the correct procedure to be adopted for applying the Vertical as well as Horizontal rescrvations. Further, this was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Dania (cited_ supra), which is a judgment rendered in the year 2OO7. The relevant Para-9 is re-produced here under:

¶126

Para-9 The second relates to the diJference betueen the noture oJ uertical reseruation and horizontal reseruation. Sociol reseruations tn fauour of SC, ST and OBC under Articte 16(4) are 'uerttcal reseruotions'. Special reseruations in fauour of phgstcattg handicapped, Luomen etc., under Afticles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reseruations'. Where a uertical reseruation [s made in Jauour^{of a backtuctrd ctass} under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to sucl"L backu.tard class, mag compete for non reserued posts and if theg are appointed to th.e non_reserued posts on their

¶127

¶128

TMD,J W.P.Nos. 34t24 of 2022 & 2246 ol2023

¶129

oun meit, their numbers uill not be counted against the quota reserued for the respecttue backuard class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, utho by their oun merlt, get selected to open competition uacancies, ecluals or euen exceeds the percentage of posts reserued for SC candidates, Lt cannot be said the reseruation quota for SCs has been filled. The entve reseruation quota uill be intoct and auailabte in additton to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide - lndira Sawhneg (Supra), R. K. Sabhanual us. Srare of Punlab (1995 (2) SCC 745), Union of India us. Virpal Singh Chauuan (1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah us. Dr.Y.L.Yamul (1996 (3/ SCC 253)1. Elut the o,foresaid pinciple applicable to uertical (social) reseruations will not applA to horizontal (special) reseruations. Wlrcre a special reseruation for uomen is prouid.ed u.tithin the social reseruation for ScheduLed Castes, the proper procedure is frst to filt up the quotct Jor^{sch.eduled caslesin orderof meit qndthen} Jind^outthe number of candidates among them u.tho belong b tfle special reseruation group of^'Scheduled Castes Women'. If the number of women in such ftst is equat to or more than the number of special reseruation quota, tgn there is no need Jor further selection toLDards the spectal reseruation quota. OnlA tf there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste utomen shall haue to be taken bA deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relattng to Scheduled Ccstes. To this ertent, horizontal (special) reseruatiott dilfers from uerticat (social) reseruation. Thus u.rcmen selected on merit uithin the uertical reseruation quota uill be counted agatnst the horizontat reseruation for uomen. Let us lllustrate bg an exampte:

¶130

If 19 posts are reserued for SCs (of uthich the quota for Luomen is Jour), 19 SC candidates shall haue to be jirst ltsted in accordance uith merit, from out of the successful elgbte candidates. If such list of 19 mndidates contains four SC women candid.ates, then there is no need to disturb the list bV inclutltng any further SC uomen candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates conrains onlA two uoman candidates, then the next ttDo SC uoman candidales in accordqnce with meit, tuilt haue to be included tn ttrc list and arresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall haue to be deleted, so as fo ensure that the^jinal 19 selected SC candidates contain four^{uomen SC candidqtes.} [But^{rf the list of 19 SC ca ndidates} contains more than four uomen candldates, selected on own merit, all of them uill continue in the list and there is no question of detettng th.e excess women candidate on the ground that^'SC- utomen' haue been selected in excess of the prescibed intemal quota offour.l

¶131

¶132

TMD,J W.P.Nos. 3a124 of 2022 & 2245 of 2023

¶133

Thus, it can be seen that the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, though were in respect of a particular scrvice, rhe principle laid dovr.n is that the Vertical reservations can only be in respect of social and economical backwardness, whereas the Horizontal reserva[ions are special reservations and u omen reservations are can onlv be Horizontal reservations.

¶134

The Government of Telangana as well as the respondent No. I ought to have followed the said judgment which is the [au, o[ the Iand while issuing the notification. It is noticed that in the notihcation issued for Group-l services by the TSPSC, the vertical reservation was sought to be followed and u,hcn challenged, this Court had directed the TSPSC to follow the Horizontal reservations as directed by the Hon'ble Supre me Courr in lhe case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (cited supra), and the State Government has followed the same and has issued a addendum to the notification to the above effect. It is also noticed that the Government of Telangana has issued and amended Rules and Reguiations of Telangana State and Subordinate Scrvicc Rules, particularly Rule 22 & 22-A to make the women reservation a Horizontal reservation. The contention

¶135

¶136

'TMD,J w.P.Nos. 3A124 oJ 2022 a 2246 oJ 2023

¶137

of [he Iearned standing counsel is that the Rules that^{were in} force as on the date of notification were followed and the appointments were made by following the Vertical reservation as per Rules. However, this argument cannot be accepted. The respondents ought to have amended the Rules in accordance with the^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (cited supra), before issuing the notification itself as the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land and has to be lollowed in to its true spirit and meaning. The contention of the respondents that the petitioners have not challenged the Regulations and therefore, the writ petitions are not maintainable cannot be accepted because the prayer of the petitioners has been to implement the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Datia (cited supra) and that the action of the respondents in treating the women reservation as Vertical reservation is in violation of the said judgment. Therefore, this Court finds that the action of the respondents in treating the women reservation as Verticai reservation is in clear violation of^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, the action of the respondents is not sustainable.

¶138

¶139

TMD,J W.P.Nos. 3a124 oJ 2022 & 2246 oJ 2023

¶140

Though the unofficial respondents have been servedwith the notices, there is no appearance on their behalf and therefore, it is presumed that they have nothing to say in this matter. The respondents are therefore directed to strictly apply the Rule of reservation for women as Horizontal reservation and make appoin tmen ts accordingly.

¶141

The writ peritions are accordingly allowed. There

¶142

shall be no order as to costs.

¶143

t7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these

¶144

writ petitions, shall stand closed.

SD/.A.V.S. PRASAD

ASSISTANT REGI

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 '' . The Chairman and OiltriOution Company^{Managing Director, Telangana} Liniite-d, having its Corforate^Sta-te Office^{Southern Power} at H.No. 6-1-50, Mint Compound,^HYderabad -^500063.

¶150

z. ine bnGi cerieral^{Manager, (HRD), TS SPDCL, Corporate Office at H'No'6-1-} 50. Mint Comoound,^{Hvderabad - 500063.}

¶151

a. irrb FiincipJl^{'becreiary, Energy Department,Stateof Telangana, Secretariat,} Hvderabad.

¶152

+. ifie-Ctriet Secretary,^{State of Telangana, General Administration Department,} Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶153

S i6. Fiincidat Secretary,^{Women Development and ChildWelfare, Senior Citizens,} ' oirilrf w"lfare Dep6rtment, State^{of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad'} O. One bC "O to^{Sri Chandraiah Sunkara Advocate} [OPUC]

¶154