Disposed

Guguloth Sagar v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC17 Dec 2025WP/22420/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unsuccessful candidates who secured marks equal to the last selected SCT Police Constable candidates sought consideration of their representation to fill unfilled vacancies per an Apex Court ruling. The High Court directed respondent No.2 Board to consider the representation within a stipulated period and communicate the decision.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 directed to consider the petitioners' representation dated 10.07.2023 per the Apex Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.4735/2022 and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated period; n

Guguloth Sagar Vs The State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF DECEIVIBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶7

WRIT P ETITION NO:22420 OF²⁰²³

¶8

Between:

¶9

Guquloth Sagar, S/o. Dharma,^{Aged about 26 years,Occ-unemploygg,} B/o H.N; 1-1, initiaganoi Thandal^{Boddugond'aVillage,GudurMandal,} ]t/lahabubabad District - 506^101.

¶10

Banoth Mangilal, S/o. Ramchander,^{Agedabout 31 ye-a.rq} Qc9-^unemployee' R/o. H,No.22--79: Kodipunjula^{Thanda,GudurMandal, Mahabubabad District -} 506 134.

¶11

3 Adem Kasheem, S/o.^{ChinnaKistaiah, Aged about 29 years, Occ-}

¶12

unemployee, R/o. H.No.5-10, Kudikilla Village, Kollapur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District 509 102.

¶13

K.Nandakishore Yadav, S/o.^{Poshetty Yadav,Agedaboul 27 years,Occ-} ,nerptoyee, R/o. H.No 4-3-388,^{Shikkar Nagai Village, BodhanMandal,} Nizamabad District.

¶14

S.^girru Saikumar, S/o. B.Narsaiah,^{Aged about 28 years. Occ- unem.ployee,} R/o H.No.1-80, Lokeshwaram^{Village and tVlandal,Nirmai District504'10-4}

¶15

O Sainiri Abhinay, S/o. Sathiri^{Ma-ngamma,Aged about.31} .^{years,. Occ-} - Jnemptoyee Fiio. H.No,5-704, Haliya Village, -Anumula Mandal' Nalgonda District - 508 377.

¶16

Z Oomjfa Swamy, S/o.^{Peddulu, Aged about 26 years, Occ- unemploy-ee, R/o'} H-t{o.A-Zt, Net'aji Nagar 2' Streei^{Chandur.Naig^onda Distrrct- 508 255.}

¶17

8 Md Aman Khan, S/o:Amjad^{Khan Aged about 28 years. Occ-unemployee} - nlo n.r.\ro r -1-27t6, Teac'her's colony. Banswada Village. Nizamabad District - 503 187

¶18

Koukuntla Raviteja Goud,^{S/o. Satyanarayana' Aged about 29 years,Occ-} unemployee, R/6.^{KarvengaVillage, Telkapally tt/landal Mahabubnagar} District - 509 385.

¶19

fO Aniefa nighavenOer Goud,^{S/o A Bhaskar.Goud} .Aged^{about 28 years,Occ-} - rn"rnpfoy"t, R/o. H.No.3-47, Pothulamadugu Village Bhoothpur Mandal' lr/ahabubnagar District.

¶20

lr/ahabubnagar District.

¶21

f f .^pofepiiiy Minesh, Slo^{Ped-aAnlaiah Aged aboq! 29 years,} ^Occunerirpldvee R/o.^{H No.4-100,Rajivaram Village,Thirumalagiri Sagar} Mandbl. l{algonda^{District - 508 377}

¶22

f Z frlamiAi Cop'i,^{S/o. Venkaiah, Aged about25 years,O-cc- unemploygg'} B/" - H No 1-13,'Medavaram Village,^{-Nereducherla} Mandal' Suryapet District - 508 201

¶23

t S trrtiivala Raju,^{S/o. Malyala Babu, Aged about 25 years, Occ- unemployee} R/o H.No.3-27,^{VengampetVillage Gudur Mandal MahabubabadDrstrrct}

¶24

t+ noepaiiv Naqaiaiu,^{S/o ilanman-dlu. Aged about 32 years occ- unemployee,} Rlo.' H.irto.2It0-250.^{JyothinagarUrban. Karimnagar' Karimnagar District-} 505 001

¶25

tS Uinan Pasha,^{S/o. MahammedAli, Aged about 30 years, Occ- unemployee,} R/o. H.No 3-45,^{Juryala Village, AtmakurMandal,Wanaparthy District}

¶26

'16 Danda Nagaiah, S/o. Bakkaiah, Aged about 29 years, ( cc- unemployee, R/o. H No.4-82, Vattikhammam Pahad Village, Chivemla l\ile rdal, Suryapet District - 508 213.

¶27

17 .Pllla Lovakumar, S/o. Yesudasu. Aged about 28 ye I s, Occ- unemployee, R/o. Kothuru, Jaggampet Mandal. East Godavari Distri: A.P,

¶28

18, Pasupuleti Venkateshwarlu, Sio. Nagaiah, Aged zrl out 30 years, Occunemployee. R/o. Vempati Village, Thungathurty Mande , Suryapet^District.

¶29

l9.Chirukonda A1ay, S/o Sammaiah. Aged about 29 ye: s, Occ- unemployee R/o H.No 1-14418, Parvathagiri Village and Mandal^tr arangal District - 506 365

¶30

20 Konda Chandrashekar, S/o Nagaiah, Aged about 30 1 :ars, Occ- employee, R/o H.No.2-57 Rebbanapally Village Dandepally Marr rl. [Vlancherial District - 504 215.

¶31

21.Masadi Rajendar, S/o. Chinnaiah, Aged about 28 yeari Occ- employee, R/o. H.No.2-43, Boyapally Village, Tandur Mandal. Mancheri I District - 504 272.

¶32

1. K.Purushotham, S/o K.Maddileti Aged about 29 yeir ;, Occ- unemployee, l1o^^{Julekal Village, Waddepally Mandal, Jogulamba} )adwal District - 509 tlo

¶33

Sandela Krishna, S/o Gopaiah, Aged about 27 years. I :c- unemployee. R/o. H.No 2-81, Thorrur Village and lvlandal, Mahabubabad I strict.

¶34

Ginnaram Naveen Kumar, S/o. Nagaiah, Aged a : rut 29 years. Occunemployee R/o. H No.1-12'118, Siddipet Village : rd Mandal Siddipet District.

¶35

...PETITIONERS

¶36

AND

¶37

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Prl. Secretar/ Home Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad - 5O0 022.

¶38

2 The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, I ep. by its Chairman DGP Office Complex, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad - 500 C⁽ 1 .

¶39

...RESPONDENTS

¶40

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lnd: praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the ligh Cou rt may be pleased to rssue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considerir I the^{representation} of the petitioners dated 10-07 -2023 for recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable in (TSSP) and (- vil) in the existing vacancies as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Cc rrt in Civil Appeal No.473512022, dated 23-11-2022 between The Telanganir State Level Police Recruitment Board and anr Vs. Narimetla Vamshi and c s pursuant to the Notification dated 31-05-2018 though the person who got rqual marks to the petitioner was got aopointed as illegal. rmproper, unjust, arb t ary. contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and ftrr her direct the 2nd respondent to for appointment to the post of Stipendiary o det Trainee (SCT)

¶41

PoliceConstable(TSSP)and(Civil)intheexistingvacanciesaSperthejudgment of the Honourable^{Apex Courtin Civil AppealNo 4735t2022'dated 23 11'2022} lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶42

PetitionUnderSectionl5lCPcprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedln the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} dlrect the 2nd respondent^{to considerthe representationof the petitionersdated} lo.oT.2023forrecruitmenttothepostofStipendiaryCadetTrainee(SCT)Police Constable^{(TSSP) and (Civil)in the existing vacancies as per the iudgment of the} HonourableApexCourtinCivilAppealNo.4T35l2O22'dated23-11-2022pendtng drsposal of the^writ Petition

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner:^{SRl. SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM}

¶44

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.1: GPFOR SERVICESI}

¶45

Counsel for the^{Respondent No.2: SRI RAJASEKHARREDDY'} SC FOR TSLPRB

¶46

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶47

IN THE^{HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEl'' *NGANA}

¶48

AT HYDERABAD

¶49

THE HON'BLE^{MRS.JUSTICESUREPALLI I'I \NDA}

¶50

w RIT^PETITIO No.224200^{F 202=I}

¶51

DATE. L7.t2.2025

¶52

BETWEEN:

¶53

Guguloth^{Sagarand others}

¶54

,^)etitioners

¶55

And

¶56

The State^{of Telangana,}

¶57

Rep. by^{its Prl. SecretarY,}

¶58

Home DePartment

¶59

Secretariat^{Buildings, Hyderabad and other}

¶60

. .ll rspondents

¶61

ORDER

¶62

Heard Sri^{Sai Prasen Gundavararr learned} of the P etitioners, counsel^{aPPearing onbehalf} Pleader fo^Services learned^{Assastant Government} (Home) appearing^{on behalf of the respor dent No'1}

¶63

¶64

SN,J w.P.No.22420^{of 2023}

¶65

and Sri Rajasekhar^{Reddy,learned StandingCounsel} for the Telangana State^{Level PoliceRecruitment} Board appearing on behalf^{of the respondent No'2'}

¶66

2 The oetitio ers aDD^{roachedthe Courtseekino} Draver as under:

¶67

"...to issue a Writ, order or^{direction,more} particularly a Wrlt of Mandamus.^{declaring the action} of the 2nd respondent in^{not consideringthe} representation of the^{petitioners dated lo-O7-2023for} recruitment to the^{post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee} (SCT) Police Constable in^{(TSSP)and (Civil)in the} existing vacancles^{as per the judgment of the Hon'ble} Apex Court in Civil^{Appeal No.47 35/ 2022, dated 23-11-} 2022 between The^{TelanganaState Level Police} Recruitment Board and^{anr Vs. NarimetlaVamshi and} ors pursuant to the^{Notificationdated 31-05-2018} though the^{person who got equal marks to the} petitioner was got appointed^{as illegal.improper,} unjust, arbitrary,^{contrary to law and alsoviolation of} prrnciples of natural^{justiceand further direct the 2"d} respondent to for^{appointmenttothe post of} Stipendiary Cadet^{Trainee(SCT) Police Constable} (TSSP) and (Civil) in the^{existing vacanciesas per the} judgment of the Honourable Apex^{Court in Civil Appeal} No.4735/2O22, dated^{23-11-2O22and to pass"}

¶68

¶69

sN,l W.P.No.2 i^{l2O of 2O23}

¶70

Der e 3 The case of^the DEtitio^{nerstnbriefer:} v r n a n hea d vit fil cl bv the et lo^e ln o of e re w t^{tion is as} under:

¶71

The^{petitioners applied for the posts of I tipendiary} i) CadetTrainee(SCT)PoliceConstablein(TSSP)lnd(Civil) in^{pursuancse of the Notification dated31'05'2(l B and the} petitioners^{qualified in all stages of selectlon : rd secured} marks equal^{to the last selected candidates b-were not} selected^{due toage preference'As sevet'i Iselected} candidates^{did not join or completethe selecti n process'} many^{vacancies remainedunfilled'}

¶72

ii) Similarly^{situated candidates approach€( the Apex} Court by^{filingCivilAppealNo' 4735of 2O22;rdthe Apex} Court,^{vide order dated 23'Ll'2022'affirmet that such} unfilled^{vacancies ought to be filled by the next meritorious} candidates.

¶73

iii) RelYing^{on the said} judgment, th<: Petitioners dated^{10.07.20i 3 tothe} submitted^{rePresentation}

¶74

¶75

SN.J w.P,No.2242O ol 2023

¶76

respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, the^{respondentNos.1} and 2 had not considered the^{saidrepresentationas on} date. Aggrieved by the same, the^{petitionersapproached} this Court by filing the^present writ^petition.

¶77

4. PERU ED THE RECORD

¶78

A) The relevant oorti n of the iud^{oment of th} Aoex Court dated 23.tL.2(J22^oassed in Civil Aooeal No.473 5 ot 2022 in "The^{Telanqaa State Level Police} Recruat ment Board and another^{vs. Narimetla} amshi nd oth extr h reu

¶79

"Learned counsel also seeks to^{rely uponthe} judicial precedent in "Munja Praveen and Ors. Vs.^State of Telangana and Ors.^" reported^{as .(2017) 14 SCC797 ,} where while interpreting the concept^{of fall out} vacancies, if any, due to^{relinquishment andnon-} joining, it has been opined that the appropriate interpretation oF the GOM^would be^{that after the} appointment order is^{issued and the appointed person} does not^join, then the^{vacancycannot be filled in on} the basis of the waiting^{list or by operating the merit} list downward.

¶80

¶81

SN,J W.P. ).22420 of 2023

¶82

Lastly it is urged that the Court has lrken care of the scenario where a person has joined a rd left as those vacancies are to be carried forward.

¶83

We have heard learned counsel for t e parties in the conspectus of the aforesaid submissio I and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent f tdings of the two Courts below. The manner of interp 3ting the rule in question has already been set out n Munja Praveen case (Supra). If a candidate has tot gone through the process of recruitment, he has rot done what was required to be done by him as set ( ut herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacaT( 7 arising which has to be carried forward to the next r: :ruitment process. As to the consequences of the large r tmber of vacancies which have remained on thes(, different accounts, the details of which have been set ( rt herein above, again lend support to this conclusic I that a large part of the process is not frustrated by rot filling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an nportant source ol employbility for young people in Il country where we are facing problems of adequacy c f jobs; An interpretation of the kind sought to be proprr nded by the appellants would go against the very lthos of providlng public employment to persons cl r ible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a Iarge number of vacancies unfilled.^-- is would not be an appropriate interpretation.

¶84

We are thus in agreement with tre view adopted and accordingly dismiss the appe I leaving parties to bear their own costs.

¶85

Interim order(s) stands vacated.,,

¶86

¶87

sN,J W.P.No.22420 of 2023

¶88

DIScussro AND C ONCLUS ION:

¶89

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners have addressed a detailed representation dated 10.07.2023 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, requesting them to fill up the unfilled 1,370 vacancies in pursuance of Notification No.BB/Rect./Admn.I/2018, dared 31.05.2018, duty taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Munja Praveen and others v. State of Telangana and others, reported in (20t7) t4 SCC 791 .

¶90

The specific prayer of the petitioners is to consider the grievance of the petitioners as put forth in the petitioners, representdtion dated 70.07.2023, seeking recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2O22, dated 23.11.2022.

¶91

Learned Standing Counse! appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 submits that appropriate directions

¶92

¶93

sN,l W.P.n ).22420 of 2023

¶94

may be issued to respondent No.2 to r ens;6s1 16" representation of the petitioners dated LO.O7.2OZ3, seeking recruitment to the post of Stipel diary Cadet Trainee (SCT) police Constable in (TSSp) a nd (Civit) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into r.r nsideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), within a reasonable period.

¶95

Learned counsel appearing on bel alf of the petitaoners does not dispute the said ;ubmission made by the tearned Standing Counsel ap Dearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Board.

¶96

9, TAKIN GI NTO coN SID ERATION:

¶97

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstar ces of the

¶98

case,

¶99

b) The submissions made by the learrr:d counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerr . learned Assistant Government pteader for Servicr: ; (Home), appearing on behalf of respondent No.t and the

¶100

¶101

SN,J w.P.No.22420^{of 2023}

¶102

learned Standing^{Counsel appearing on behalf of the} respondent No'2-^Board,

¶103

The^{judgrnent of the Apex Court dated} c) 23.LL.2O22^{passedin Civil AppealNo'4735 ot 2022in} "The Telangana^{StateLevel Police RecruitmentBoard} and another^{vs. Narimetla Vamshi and others"} (referred to and^{extracted above)'}

¶104

The law^{laid down in the judgment of the} d) Apex Court^{in "MunjaPraveen and others v' State of} Telangana^{and others"reported in (2017) 14 SCC} 797,

¶105

The discussion^{and conclusion as arrived at} e) paragraph Nos.5^{to 8 of the presentorder'} he Wr Pe itio is di o t rec tn r nd t o h rel oco ider the n van^e f t ti n rsa o ln he e toners ated1^.o7 2 2 3, seekin fill inq^uoof re Dre en^ation cl tn rs n eof t It 1 7()v A I o d ti n N

¶106

-7 1 ,t I i i i

¶107

¶108

w.r) {o.22420 "f 2:#C

¶109

1 o5 ti I fo ru der n t e s f e o h

¶110

) s n rv c de Tra ne S P o le ( TSsP) nd ivil rn th e is an v a e ul taki n In o sid ra n h e a n ud c m nt of he A x c rt e 1 2 e _^livil Aooeal No 4735 of 2022 in"Th e T

¶111

nqana st te vel Po e R c LI! en Boa d d o er a ( tla v a mshi an ot r r f, rt a a I b ve). in strict adherence to the s D eciftc observat Ons made thereunder an t

¶112

D ssa D ro rtat orde r within a e lo f r 4 e sf o l1 eIDt of a

¶113

o of h rder r a aw and dulv comm unicate the d ts ton on the E! titioners, re !'esentat!o n dated to 7. 20 23 to the I , t on ers he w ver t IE s Ib rde s t! costs.

¶114

0",,,, i r this Writ "ll'r'n"i,?^{i:.H j""j:l: n s,,i r a n y, p e A d i n s i}

¶115

SD/-F PONNA KRISHNA Asfr! IANT REG|STRAR

¶116

_ -- _-1

¶117

//TRUE COPYII i^{IECTION OFFICER}

¶118

To,

¶119

1 The Principalsecretary.

¶120

^{T.S.,Hyderabarl- SOO'022.} -Home^{Department. SecretanatB} rr dings,

¶121

1. lhe Chairman, Telanqana. State Level police Recruitmen 3 ^ one Comp_tex, cc to sRt Lakdr_ka_poot sAr pander.r uvo"iioro:'so6 curiD;V;RXiu 0bi l"" Advocate" |oard, DGP Office |^)PUCI

¶122

-",:.:ffi'a &l$.ffi @mffi:'

¶123