Dismissed

Masanipally Arjun v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC26 Aug 2025WP/13872/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged Rule 22(2)(b) & (e) of the Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 for treating persons with disabilities under vertical rather than horizontal reservation in a Group-I recruitment notification. The Division Bench dismissed the writ petition on grounds of inordinate delay, coverage by prior dismissed batch cases, and participation in the selection process without suc

What the court decided

AI extract

Masanipally Arjun Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^348e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH^{DAY OF AUGUST} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICESUDDALA CHALAPATHIRAO}

¶8

WRIT PETITIO^{N NO:13872OF 2024}

¶9

Between:

¶10

-1 . Masanipally Arjun, S/o lrilasanipally Vittal Aged about.26 vears. occ. Student Rl/o. 3_11t2. Anthergaon,^{rlrri,ei'rr/li"oatAi-therg^aon. Sirgapur. Medakstate.} Telangana, Pincode.502287^{Cell 91 79897 06370}

¶11

Z. Aiun^{"ReddyKukunoori,S/o Kukunoori_Narender ReddyAgedabou1.26.years,} - O"i. Studeht R/o.f 3-i3, Fip"nnap"t, Papannapet Mamdalam, District. tvledak' State. Telangana,^{Pincode.502303Cell 91 891 91 94719}

¶12

...pETtTtoNERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 . The state of Telangana,^{General Administration Department, secretariat,} Hyderabad, rep. by^{its Chief Secretary} -^-:^-,.:,.

¶15

Z. i6e iriincipat Secietary,^{Women Dev6lopment and Child Welfare, Senior Citizens'} - olsloteo welfare Dep6rtment, state of Telangana, secretariat, Hyderabad g. ih;i"lingina Stit.j Public Service Commisiion, Prathibha^{Bhavan, Nampally,} Hyderabad'', PIN^- 500001,^{representedby its Secretary} ...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

...RES'.NDENTS PetitionUnderArticle226oflheConstitutionoflnd.iaprayingthatinthe circumstances stated^{in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to} issUeaWrit,directionorordermorepartiCUlarlyoneinthenatUreofWritof Mandamus Declaring the^{G. O. Ms. No. 96, GeneralAdministration (ser. D)} Departmentdated22-o7-20lgissuedbytheRespondentNo.lintakingspecial reservations more specifically^{persons with disabilities intoVertical} reservations by earmarking^{roster points to them and subsequentamendments} to the Rule 22 of^{TelanganaState SubordinateserviceRules, 1996 throughG.} O. Ms. No.96,^{General Administration(Ser' D) Department'dated 22-07 -2019} andconsequentNotificationvideNo.o2t2o24datedlg.02-2024issuedbythe Respondent No. 3^{as illegal, arbitrary, excessive and violative of Article 14'15,} 16 and 21 of the constitution^{of lndia and also contraryto the law laid down by} the Honble Supreme^{Court in lndraSawhney Case and various othercases and} consequently^{set aside the Rule 22 Sub-Rule-2(b) and (e) of Telangana State}

¶17

¶18

Subordinate Service^Rules, 1996 which^{was amendedthrough G. O' Ms' No'96'} General Administration Department, dated^{22'07'2019 and direct the} Respondent No.3 to^{implement Horizontal reservation to all the special} reservations more specifically^{Persons with Disabilitie:sin Notificationtide No} 021 2024 dated 19'02-2024

¶19

(Prayer is amerrded as^per Court Order dated^{19.12-202'tl in l.A.No'5of 20241}

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the (iircum!;tances stated in the} affidavit frled in support^{of the petition, the High Courtm ry be pleasedto irect the} Respondents to follow the^{Principals ofHorizontal reservationsfor special} reservatrons r.e. Persons with^{Disabilitres (Physically a rd merntallyHandicapped} Persons) without embarking any^{roaster points for them by followingthe dicta laid} down by the Hon'ble^{SupremeCourt in several cases in} l.,ursuant^{to the Notification} No. O2l2O24 dated^{19-02-2024 issued by the Responden.s pendingdisposal of the} main writ petition in the interests of^justice

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶23

Petition under section¹⁵¹ CPC^{praying that in the ( lrcumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCourt m::ybe pleasedto directthe} Respondents to not release the^{results of the PrelimsExa ninatron conductedon 09-} 06-2024 unless the^{Respondents implement the order datr:d 12-06-2024 by releasing} revised break uc of vacancies without^{earmarking roaster points trt specral reservation} which come under Horizontal Reservations^{in the above wt t petittonir-r the interest of} justice

¶24

lA NO: 3 OF 2024:

¶25

Between:

¶26

The Telangana State Public Service Commission,^Prath ibha thavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, PIN^- 500001,^{represented by its Secretary}

¶27

,PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT

¶28

AND

¶29

1 tvlasaniperlly Arjun, S/o^{tr,4asanipally Vittal Agedabout..26 years,Occ} .^StudentR/o 3-1112,' Anthergaon,^{Kalher'Ir/lndalAnthergaon, Sirgapur, MedakState} Telangana, Pincode.502287^{Cell.91 79897 06370}

¶30

Arun Reddy Kukunoori, S/o^{Kukunoori Narender ReddyAgedabou1.26-years} Occ. Studeht Fyo.13-13, Papannapet,^{Papannapet Mamdalam,District' t\rledak'} State. Telangana,^{Pincode.502303 Cell. 91 89191 nOrkna"ro*o=Nrs/pETt,oNERS}

¶31

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

¶32

The Principal Secietary,^{Women Development and ChildWelfare, Senior Citizens,} Disabled Welfare Depirtment, state of relansr.r,^{.?.J3f%lilrfl{3i{8333*o."r,}

¶33

Petition under section 151 cPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filedⁱⁿ support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to vacate the} lnterim Orders dated:^{12lOGt2O24and dismissthe writ petition insofar as this} respondent is concerned

¶34

lA NO: 4 OF 2024:

¶35

Between:

¶36

The Principal Secretary, Women Development^{and Child Welfare, SeniorCitizens,} Disabled Welfare Department, State of^{Telangana,Secreffiijl,r;afit3P3$oo..}

¶37

AND

¶38

1 Masanipally Arjun, S/o tvlasanipally^{Vittal Aged about.26 years,Occ.. Stu!en!R/o} 3-1112, Rntnergaon, Kalher^{MandalAnthergaon, Sirgapur, Medak State} Telanoana. Pincode.502287 Cell. 91 79897 06370

¶39

2 Arun heddy Kukunoori, S/o^{KukunooriNarender. ReddyAgedabou1.26-years,} Occ. Student R/o.13-1 3, Papannapet,^{Papannapet /amdalam,District- Medak'} State. Telangana, Pincode.502303 Cell.^{91 89191 n41]^n} rroro=Nrs/pE,,oNERs The State of Telangana, General^{Administration Deparlment,Secretariat,} Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Secretary I

¶40

4 The Telangani Stete Public Service Commission,^{Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally,} Hyderabad, PIN - 500001 , represented by^{its Secretary} .'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS

¶41

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^{praying that in the circumstances statedin the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleased to vacatethe} interim order Dt:12.06.2024^{in lA.No.10I 2024 in W.P.No.13872jf 202 and dismiss} the WP

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{Ms. DEVARA SAMHITHA}

¶43

Counsel for Respondent^{Nos. 1 & 2: SRI S. RAHULREDDY,} SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER GP FOR SERVICES III

¶44

Counsel for Respondent^{No. 3: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR}

¶45

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶46

¶47

¶48

HON,BNLE^SRI IUSTICE^P.SAMKOSHY AND HON'BLE^SRI IUSTICE^{SUDDALA CHALAPATTII I(AO}

¶49

WRIT^{PETITION NO.138720F2024}

¶50

ORDER:^{(1,,'rHott l,l,'5riltrstice Suddnln(-lnlapatli l?'nt)}

¶51

Initially,^{thc above writ petition is fited by petiti:rnerssecking} direction^{to the respondentsherein to followthe principler;of horizontal} reservatiou^{for specialreservationsi e''persons with clisabilities} without embarkirrg^{any roster points for them and conside'r the} petitioners for^{appointmentfor the notif ication No l/ 2024 datc'cl} 79.02.2024. The^{learned singleJuclgeof this Cour!aftlr hearingthe} arguments of^{the petitioners and the respondents' was p caseci to glant} interim orcler^{z'rrlr, order dated 12.06.2024 directing thet csPorrdents ttr} followtheprincipleofhorizontalreservationforspecialt.t:se'rvationi.e., persons^{n'ith cli;ahitities withoutembarking any roster J oints ior thc'm} and consicler^{the petitionersfor appointment' It is fur her submittecl} that subsequcnt^{to the said interim order' the resfondentshave} announceclthert:sulton07.07.2025andtheresponderltNo.l]file'cla vacatePetitioni,irlcl.A.No.3of2o24on22.07.2024anclt]rcrcsponclent Nos.1 and^{2 filed vacatepetitio n on 22 09 '2024 1 he petitioners} subsequently^{havc filed an application for amendmentr:r I praver lile} l.A.No.S of^{202'I or-r 18.12.2024challengingthe Rules'mcle particularly'}

¶52

¶53

Rule 22 Sub-rule (2) (b) and (e) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, Rules, 1996), which was brought into existence uide G.O.Ms.No.96 General Admir.ristration (SI:R.D) Departmerrt, dated 22.07.2019 and the petitioners sought to clcclarc the iame as unconstitu tional and also violative of the juclgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the judgments of this Hon'ble Court. In view of the same the said writ petition is listed before us.

¶54

It is further submitted by the writ petitioners that in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and othersr and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht2, wherein the special reservations that of the women and othe.r persons wi th disabilities i.e. special ca tegory persons, the rule of reserva tion shall be followed horizontally and not vertically and ir1 the instant casr,, the Rulc 22(2)(b) & (e) of the Rules, 7996 are violarive of rhc above judgments and the respondents in deviation to the above two judgments, have followed the procedure under the said Rulcs, w,hich are contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court statecl supra, as such prayed to declare the said rules as unconstitutional. Besides this, the petitioners relied upon the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1155 and 1,772 of 2024, wherein it is statccl that

¶55

'^{(2007) 8 scc 78s} '^{zoto (tz) scc 2o4}

¶56

¶57

¶58

the Division^{Benchhas hetd. in case of women re} 'ervation'^the' horizontal^{reservationhas to be followed and petition:'rscontended} that the^{respondents cannotdeviate from the ordersc I the Division} Bench^{of this Court and implementRule 22(2)(b)&(e)of tl c llules, 1996.}

¶59

Per Conhn,^{I-he respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter-} affidavit^{along with vacate stay applicationstating t rat pe'titiorrers} herein^{havechatlenged the present Rules in G.O.N'ls.No.96 datetl} 22.07.2019^{on78.12.2024z'irle l.A.No.S of 2024, bv r'r'hich clate'both the} preliminary^{aml main examinationswere concludeda rd the' present} writ petition^{is squa relv covered by the orderspassed 'ry tht: I{on'ble} Division Bench of^{this court in w.P.No.260380f 2024a rd batchdated} 26.72.2024,^{whir:h was also cotlfirmedby the Hon'bleSu rremeCourt in} SpecialLeavet.lAppeat(C)No.2410of2025passedon{)3.02'2025and contended that^{the l)resent Petitionersalso stand in sanie iooting that} of the petitioners^{in the abovecase, where in the Hon',t'le the Division} Bench has cak:gorically^{held that petitionersafter laPse .fse'eral} months cannot challenge^{the saidrules and held that in ihe cases of this} nature, day-to- day^{clelay is very importantand that the said writ} petition is devoid of merits and^{liable to be dismissedrrn that ground} alone. It is further submitted by the^{respondent Nos-1 and 2 that} similarly situalecl persons with^that of^{the petitioners in notification}

¶60

¶61

¶62

No.2/2024 dated 19.02.2024, also challenged the said notification in a batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024, flled on 02.08.2024 and 13.08.2024, respectively, and the challenge to the selechon process in the previous round failed on the ground of de.lay and the said orders were confirmed by the Hon'ble Division bench of this court and also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

¶63

It is also submitted by the respondents that the impugned notification was also subject matter in second round before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch, wherein the said rules as amended zride G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2079,^were questioned and the said cases were dismissed on account of inordinate clelay ancl the respondent Nos.1 and 2, would submit that present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by the Division^Bench of this Court in the above cases and as such, the petitioners have not made out new grounds or differentiated their case with that of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21239 &. 22320 oi 2024 or W.P.No.26038 oI 2024 and batch, which calls for interference of this Court.

¶64

The respondent No.3 also filed counter-affida vit, inter alia, stating in same lines with that of the^{respondents Nos.1 and 2 also contended} that petitioner No.1 despite being qualified^{for mains examination, has} not attcnded in the^{mainexamination} and^{hence, he is ineligible to}

I tl

participate in further Process^{oI recruitmentas per the norLtrsstipulated} in the notificatiorr^{No.2/2024,clated 19 02'2024 and (urtht'r'pctitioner} No.2 was^{not sur,cessfulin the examinationas he could rot placethe} pickuplistsofarfortlreGroup-Iservicestrir/gnotificatit,rrNo,2/2024 and as Such^{the Petitioners having participated in the aborr'' notification} cannot turn^{around and challenge the said Rule22 (2)(br & (t;1 of ihe} Rules, 1996,^{as amendecl by G.O'Ms No 96 dated 22'07 201)' rvhir:hwere} in force even^{as on the date of issuance of the impugnc'l notification} and has prayetl^{to disrniss the present rvrit petition on he grounclof} delay and^{also in pursuanceof thc orders passed irr W 'No 21239 of} 2o24andbatchandalsotheorc{erspassedbytheDivisiorrBc'nclrofthis Hon ble Court^{in W.P No.26038of 2024 and batch, dated'.''6122024'}

¶69

We have perused^{the material placed on ret orcl zrnd the} contentionsofthepetitionersintheafficlavitandthecoutttet:aifidavits filed by the respondents^{hereinanclheardthe argumentsof thc'learrled} counsel for petitioners^{Mrs Samhitha Devaraand Mr' S Rahul Reddy'} learned Special^{(lovernmentPleadcr representing the resl.ondentNtls.l} and 2 (office of Aclditional^{Advoc-ate General) and sri l's.Raiasekhar,} appearing for resPondent^No.3'

¶70

Before going into^{the rivalsubmissions, we deem it ap6,ropriate} to refer certain orders^{passed by this Court, whereinsillr ilitr challenge}

was mac-lc by the petitioners therein to the notification No.2/2024 dated 79.02.2024 anc-l other notifications, for filling of the vacancies in the respondent No.3-Public Service Commission i.e., in W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 and batch, the petitioners therein prayed for setting asitle the 2"(i notification No.2/2024 dated 19.02.2024 and prayed for restoration of notification No.4/2022 dated 26.04.2022 and it was contenc-led that that issuance of notification No.2/ 2024 dated 79.02.2024 is contrary to the directiorrs of this Court in W.P.No.15811 o( 2023 dated 23.09.2023 and further direction was prayed to conduct fresh preliminarl, examination in pursuance of the notification No.4/2022 datcd 26.04.2022. The writ Court, by order dated 15.10.2024 dismissed the W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and batch by recording the following

¶76

findings

¶77

t "10. ....Thus, aftcr a lapse of six mont]rs from the'date of canccllation of old notificabion, the petitioners approachcd this Court w,ithout assigmng any reasons for delay, much less, day- todav tlelav. [f thr: petitioners in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 are reallv aggricvccl bv tht canccllation of notification No.4/2022, datcd 26.(\4.2022, through r.r,eb note dated 79.02.2024, they ought to have aprproachcd this Court and challenged the same at the earliest point of timc itself. Though the delay on the part of the petitioners app(,ars kr bc onlv six months, but, in a matter of this nature, the dav-to-dav dclav matters and further the Petitioners failed t<t cxpl;rrn cven a singlc rcason for the dclay in approaching this Court.^'Ihcrefore, on this ground^{alonc, this} Court^is not inclined to

entertain^{W:it Petition No 21239 of 2024'without advertingto the} other^{qrounrls raised therein"}

¶82

Admittedlv,^{the order of learned single Juclge wasu nsucccssful[-Y} challenged^{tn W.A Nos 1188and 1190 of 2O24ant{the piv sion llench ot} .ellalr(.c' u f'ol1 this^{Court confirrnecl the order of rvrit Court bv Placine} the^{judgmentof the Hon'ble Apex Courtin the case of AshokKumar v'} State of^{Bihar3. Subsequently orders in WA No 11('0 12024were} challenged^{before the I{on'bleApex Court in SI'P'(C) No Z77c)O/2074'} Furtlrer it is^{to bc} which^{was disnrissecl t'irle order clated06 12'2024} noted in^{W.P.No.26038of2024 antl batch'11-t" ;'11'35 o[Rule} 2Z (2)(a)&(b)^{of the Rules, 1996 was callecl in questiolr' the flon'blc} Division^{Bench of this Court after due consi'deration of e'rrlier t'oundof} litigation^{in W.['.Nos.21239 of 2024and22320 of 2024 batch' declinedto} entertain^{the rvrit petitionon the ground of inordrrratedelaf in} approaching^{the Court. It was also hetd that though thc delayon the} part of the^{petitioners was only six months' but in mattel of this nature'} day-to-day^{delay mattersand the Petitioners have failet to explain the} delay even^{with a single reason lhe Division Benchol.this Court in} W.P.No.26038^{of 2024 and batch' further held that as the seler:hon} questioned^{in saici writ petitionsis sameselectionrt'hich becanle subject} matter of^{chaltenge in the previous rouncl i'e'' in W P N r t'27239of 2024}

3 (2017) 4 scc 357

anci batch, which was dismissed on the ground of delay of six months ln approaching this Court and noted that if lesser delay in filing previous rouncl of litigation was held to be fatal, it was not possible to holtl that a much largcr delay in filing the said batch of petitions will fade into insignificance. The Division Bench by placing reliance upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihara ancl Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of lndias held that the reliefs claimed directly which were not granted in W.P.No.158l1 of 2023 cannot be permitted to be done in directly and observing the said findings,^{the Hon'ble} Division Bench of this Court in was pleased to dismiss the W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch, vide order dated 26.72.2024.

¶87

Coming to the^facts in the instant case, the ,^{writ petitioners} challenged Rule 22(2)((b)&(e) of the Rules, 7996 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019 and the said rules were in force as on the date of notification No.2 of 2024 dated 79.02.2024 and that though the writ petition was filed on 72.06.2024, the actual challenge to the said rules was made only on 18.12.2024 z.,lde amendment applicatiory as such the actual chailenge is made almost around 10 months from the date of notification. As such, there is an inordinate delay of challenge to the

¶88

o (1987) 1 scc 378 t 1zor8y 9 scc roo

{

said rules and^{more so the relief cLaimed in the presentK'rit petition rs} also squarely^{covered by the orders passedby rl-ris Clourtin} W.P.No.21239^{and 22320 of2024' dated 15'10 2024 whir:h were} confirmed^{in W.A.Nos.1188ancl 1190 of 2024'dated18'1i).2024andalso} confirmed^{by the orderspassedby the Hon'bleSupremeCourtdated in} SLP.(C).No.27790^{of 2024 on 6'72'2024 and also the or'lers passed in} W.P.No.26038^{ctf 2024Dt-2612'2024 as confirmedbv the Hon'ble Apex} Court in^{SLP(C'INo.2410 of 2025'}

¶95

It^{is furtherobserved that another importantasp:'ct'whichis to} be dealt^{with is, petitioner No'1 has particiPated inthe rnain} examination^{conductedin pursuance of notificationNr'2/2024dated}

¶96

79.02.2024 and^{the challenge is made afterhe wasunsucr-essfut and that} the petitioner^{No.2 was also unsuccessfulin the exainination' as he} could also not find^{place in the pickuplist for the Gro'r p-I' serwices'in} view of the conditions^{stipulated in the Notificatior'L and that the} Hon'ble Supreme^{Court in Ashok Kumar(supra)'has lreld that person} who consciously^{takes part in selectionprocesscamo: thereafter turn} around and^{,:hallenge the method of selectionan Iits outcome'}

¶97

followingthesame,asthepetitionershaveparticipatecLintheselection process and having^{been unsuccessful,cannotchallenlle the rules and}

selections through the noLification No.2/2O24, dated 19.02.2024 and on

¶102

this ground aiso, writ petition is liable to be rejected.

¶103

In vicw of the above findings, We, therefore hold that writ

¶104

petition is clevoid of merits and the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the instant Writ Petition. The petitioners have neither substantiated their case for the reliefs sought in nor have differentiated

¶105

their cases with that of the petitioners in the previous batch of cases

¶106

'12. [n view of the afore stated findings the Writ Petition stands

¶107

accordingly dismissed. There shall bc no order as to costs

¶108

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶109

SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I 6)'-/ secttoN oFFrcER

¶110

One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P. SAM} KOSHY . (For His LordshiPs' Kind Perusal)