Allowed

Md. Amzad v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Telangana HC18 Mar 2025WP/45687/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking appointment as Motor Mechanic Trainee. The court held that respondents failed to consider the petitioner's candidature despite him being the next meritorious candidate under the BC 'B' category after a selected candidate failed to join, violating recruitment rules and causing procedural unfairness.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's case for appointment and issue order within six weeks; proceedings in miscellaneous applications closed.

Md. Amzad Vs Singareni Collieries Company… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

I t :

¶3

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

¶4

TUESDAY, THE^{EIGHTEENTHDAY OF MARCH} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTYFIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE^{SRIJUSTICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA}

¶7

WRIT PET^{ITION NO:45687 0F 20',18}

¶8

Between:

¶9

Md.Amzad,S/otvld.Ankoos,aged32-years,e/oLlNo'16-2-17112'ShivajiNagar' CoiirJtilnini^{Ramagundam Mandat, PeddapallyDistrict}

¶10

AND

¶11

Sinoareni collieries^{companyLimited, (A Governmentcompalry)Singareni} ' Eii;";;:'h;J iirii, nJpr"5""t'ea ov its Chairman and Manasing Director

¶12

Director^(PA &^{W), Singareni Collieries} 9.o*.p9ny^{Limited Kothagudem} -' coiiiliies'so7 101, Kothagudem, Khammam District

¶13

3.GeneralManager'(Personnel)RC,lR&Pjvl..sino2reniCollieriesCo.Limited (A Govemment c"ri!iivi"k6th;-si';;^{cottieri6s(Po) 507 '101 Bhadradri} Kothagudem District

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe congtitutionof lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filedtherewith' the High Court may be} pleasedtoissueawrit,orderordirectionmoreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus^{or any other appropriatewrit (i) declarethe proceedingsvide} Ref.No'CRP/PER/R/05/2018/l0S6dated24.ll.2ol}innotconsideringthecaseof the^{petitioner for appointmentto the post of lt/otor Mechanic Trainee category-l} (External) is wholly^{illegal, arbitraryand consequently set asidethe same'(ii)} directtheRespondentstoconsiderthecaseofthePetitionerforappointmentto the^post of^{MotorMechanicTrainee Category-l (External) in pursuanceto}

¶16

i I I I

¶17

.*;'

¶18

Notification No.2 of 201 5 under B.C. B-category since the Petitioner is the next eligible candidate for the post of Motor Mechanic Trainee Category-l (External).

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶20

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 consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment to the post of lt,lotor Mechanic Trainee Category-l (External) in pursuance to Notification No. 2 of 2015 in the vacancy by suspending the proceedings vide Ref: No. CRP/PER/Fy05/2018/1086 dated 24.11 .2018.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MEKALA GOUTHAM KUMAR

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI P. SRI HARSHA REDDY, S.C. FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO. LTD.

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

-q'.rtx

¶25

TI{E HON'BLE^{SRI J(,STICE NAGESHBHEEMAPAKA} WRIT PET^{ITIONNo.45687 of2OLa}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The case of^{the petitioner is that he possesses SSCand ITI} in Motor Mechalic^{Trade in 2006' He furthersubmits that} respondent^{companyissued NotihcationNo'2 of 2O 15 for the} post of Executive^{and Non-Executivecadre' He appliedfor the} said notification^{and the written test was conductedon} 18.12.2016,^{the results of which were declaredon the same} day. Petitioner^{secured 48'88 marks' However'the selectionlist} was not hnalized^{on the groundthat some ineligiblecandidates} filed W.P.No.^{43666 of 2016 and obtained an interim stay' As a} result, the^{results were not declared, nor were appointment} orders issued.^{Consequently,petitioner' along with others' filed} implead and^vacate Petitions'

¶28

In the vacate^{petition filed by the selected caldidates'} including the^{petitionerand the management' thisCourt} directed the^{management todeclare the results aldissue} appointment^{ordersto the selectedcandidates' Accordingly'the} provisional^{selection list was displayedon O5'O6'2O 17' Under} the BC "B"^{category,there were three posts' Only two}

¶29

¶30

NBK,J W.,. No-45687 of 2018

¶31

candidates joined, i.e., Balram Sama-la ard Aldandi Nagaraju; however, Shzrreef Sk, Waralga1, did not .;oin. :jince the petitioner is tr-re next meritorious candidate under the BC ,B,, category, it was an obligation on the part of the respondents to consider the nr:xt meritorious candidate, as the selcction list was frnalized on 05.06.20|T. petitioner approar:hed the respondent authorities several times; however, his cas,: was not considered, despite being in the zone of consideration in pursuance of Notification No.2 of 2015. He submits that. in the impugned pro<:eedings, it is stated that in the everrt of any vacalcies arising subsequently, or selected candidates failing to join, or selected candidates resigning after join..ng, the candidates shall be selected from the merit list in ac,::ordance with the Rule o1'Reservation during the validity o[ one les1, i.g., the panel year. from 10.06.2017 to 09.O6.2018. Therefore, petitioner's casr: should have been considered for the post of Motor Mechanic Trainee Category_I (External).

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that erlthough the notihcation js of 2015 and the merit list were provr sionally displayed on 05 06.2or2, the 3.a ca,didate who secure,i so.oS marks did not join. Hence, the next meritorious candid,ate (the

¶33

NBKJ W.P. No.456!7^of201E

¶34

¶35

petitioner)^{should have been considered under the BC "B"} category.^{Despitebeing awareof this vacancy'the respondents} failed to^{consider thepetitioner'scarr didaturebefore} a rePresentation^on 09.06.2018.^{Petitioner submitted} not considered^{bY the} 13.08.2018;^{however'the samewas} respondents.^{Subsequently,petitioner filed W'P'No' 35078 of} 2018,^{requesting considerationof his case for appointment to} thepostofMotorMechanicTraineeCategory-Iinpursuanceof Notification^{No.2 of 2015'This Courtdirectedthe respondents} to consider^{the representation dated 13'08'2018and pass} appropriate^{orders. However' the 3'drespondent' on} 24.ll.2ll8,rejected^{the petitioner'scase' leading to the frlingof} the present^{writ petition'Petitionerfurther submitsthat the} respondent^{issued Notification No'5 of 2Ol7 for the post of} MotorMechanicTraineeCategory-I,notifyingoC,BC,BC,'D,,' SC, and^{ST categories' However'the post notihed in Noti{ication} No.S of^{2017 was not hlled' and the vacanby still exists'} Therefore,^{the respondents should have consideredthe} petitioner's^{case for appointmentto the post of MotorMechanic} Trainee Category-I' \

¶36

¶37

¶38

NBKJ l '.P. No.45687 of 2018

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Recruitment rules and as per Rures 9.1 and 10.1 of the Recruitment Rures which reads zLs; follows:

¶40

"9.1 After making selections for the number ,:f posts requirecl tc be filled up immediately, the final nrerit list generatecl, based on both the written test and ir terview, will be kept valid for a period of one year from tht: date of approval of the selection list. Irr the event of any vacarcies arising subsequently, selected carrdidates failing t.o join, or selected caldidates resignirrg after joining, candidates may be selected from the sard merit list by application of the Rule of Reservation.,,

¶41

Matters to be approved by C & M.D.: 10.1: In the event of the panel being exhausted lrefore ,h.-.,,"r.pi! ^^{ojone year aldvacanciesremEijning} unfilled, O & M.D. may approve caJling another round of interviews to makl a selection fiom amon51 the candidates who have secured the required qualr fying marks in tl-re same written test but welre not calk,,d for intervievr.s. "

¶42

Learned counsel further submits that, under iiules 9. 1 and 10.1 of the Recruitment Rules, if the 3,a candidar e did not join duties, thr: ng><1 meritorious candidate, i.e., the petitioner who secured 48.88 marks, ought to have been considered.

¶43

Learned Standing Counsel for respondent(.lompany submits that petition".Yo, -ua" the representatio;r within considerable time therefore respondent authorities rejr:cted the

¶44

NB(,J W.P.^{No.45687 of 2018}

¶45

¶46

¶47

case of^{the petitionerand respondentauthorities followedthe} due^{procedurein accordancewith law'}

¶48

on perusing^the 6. Considering^{the submissionsmade'} record,^{the writ petition is allowed' This Court frnds that the} resPondents^{failedto considerthe Petitioner'scandidaturefor} the^{post ofMotor MechanicTrainee Category-Iunder} Notification^{No'2 of 2O15' d'espite the petitionerbeing the next} meritorious^{candidateunder the BC "8" category and a vacancy} arising^{due tothe non-joiningof a selectedcandidate.The} Court^{observes that as Per Rr.rle 91 of the Recruitment Rules'} the merit^{list wasvalid for oneYea-r'and the resPondents'} inaction^{during this period camsedprocedural unfairness'Ttre} respondents^{are directed to reconsiderthe petitioner'scase for} appointment^{to the said post and' if found eligible' shall issue} an appointment^{order' This processmust be completedwithin} sto s1X weeksfromthedateofreceiptofthisorder.Noordera costs . Miscellaneous^{applications'if any' pending in this} writ shall^{stand closed'} petition, SD/-A.^SRINIV ASA DDY G STRAR ASSISTANT /TTRUE^COPY// SECTPN^OFFICER To, 1 r{"ffi il:: 2 i:;[t,h'[fli;*6-d**r#;"f;

¶49

¶50

¶51

The General^{l\4anager,(Personnel) RC' lR and PM SingareriC-ollie-riesC^o-} " iiritJ tn Gn,errireni'cor.np'nvl Kothagudem Collieries (Po) 507 101 .l Bhadradri^{Kothagudern District'}

¶52

+. ON" CC^{tO SRI MEKALAGOUTHAM KUMAR'AdVOCAIE [OPLIC]} 5. One^{CC to SRI P. SRI HARaHA neOOV, S.C' for SingarerriCollieries Co'} Ltd. [oPUC]

¶53

Two CD^CoPies

MP
o
LS

t
I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1810312025

{

1 lE SI4 7 \ <br>1)a
<br>a
)
(-) tlr ,' ir i rl (f(!',rFlt Pz
* ,./
c ,,,
-- ----.-)--' ORDER

¶60

WP.No.45687 of 2018

¶61

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶62

09 oq

Md. Amzad v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Amzad v. Singareni Collieries Company Limited

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

Smt. B. Savithri Bai, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. Pulimamidi Saritha Reddy, Vs The Osmania University

Dr. Y. Anand Reddy Vs Prl. Secy., Animal Husbandry and Ano.

S.M.Hashmi, Vs The State of Telangana

Bhel Workers Union, (Affiliated to Aituc) Vs Sri Ravinder Reddy

Ragi Subhashanachary Vs State of Telangana