Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board Vs Polampelli Raju

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.V.RAMA RAO, SC FOR TSLPRB Counse! for the Respondent No.l: SRI PRATHAP NARAYAN SANGHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HOME

¶20

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶21

:,.:;i'.. ,'f,Ex{-:

¶22

..)',

¶23

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶24

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE^{SRI APARES H KUMARSINGH} ANI)

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JU^STICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.l51 of 2026

¶27

DATED: 01.04.2026

¶28

Between:

¶29

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment^Board Rep. by its Chairrran, DGP Offrce Complex, Lakdi-ka-pul, Hyrlerabad.

¶30

... Appellant

¶31

AND

¶32

Polampelli Raju, ii/o Bheemanna and^another

¶33

... Respondents

¶34

JUDGMENT:

¶35

Heard Mr. M.V.Rama Rao, leamed Standing^{Counsel for TelanganaState} Level Police Rec ruitment Board appearing^{for the appellantand Mr. Prathap} Narayan Sanghi, leamed Senior Counsel^{representing Mr. AvadeshNarayan} Sanghi, leamed c,tunsel appearing for^{respondent No.l/writ petitioner.}

¶36

In the Nolification dated 15.08.2025 issued by^{Telangana State Level} Police Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as^{'the appellantBoard') for} appointment to the posts of Assistant Public^{Prosecutor (Category-6)in} Telangana State Prosecution Service, 118 vacancies^{werenotified.The present}

¶37

li

¶38

2

¶39

/rs revolves around Clauses (iv) and (vi) of Note to Para 12(A) of Selection

¶40

Procedure/Scheme of the Notification. The said clauses read as under:

¶41

"iv) The minimum marks to be secured by Candidates in order to qualifr in the written examination for each paper is 40o/o for Posts under OC including EWS; 35% for Posts reserved for BCs; and 30o/o for Posts reserved for SCs and STs / Orthopedically Handicapped. Oualifuine. in each of the Papers: Paper-l and Paoer-II is an essential^prerequisite for a Candidate to be considered for selection.

¶42

vi) Candidates who secured 40o/o and above in each Paper i.e. Paper-I and Paper-ll only are eligible to be considered for selection for Posts under oc/Ews."

¶43

It is also pertinent to refer to the selection criteria mentioned at Para 12(B)

¶44

of the Notification which reads as under:

¶45

"B)^Selection:

¶46

The fnal selection in each category of Posts witt be strictly on relative merit of the Candidates, obtained by them based on their aggregate score after qualifying in the written examination in Papers I and II (400 marks) duly following the special representation as laid down in Rule 22 and Rule 22-A of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules. As per G.O. Ms. No.l24 General Administration (SPF.MC) Dept., dated 30.08.2018 while filling up the vacancies, the frst 5o/o of the Posts shall be filled following combined Qualified^{Candidates List (in descendingorder of marks obtained)of the} Candidates and thereafter, the remaining 95o/o of the Posts shall be filled up by local Candidates only."

¶47

Vide G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 21.03.2023, the Government introduced the following amendment in Rule 11 of the Telangana State Prosecution Service I I

¶48

Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1992 Rules'), which is relevant^{to be}

¶49

taken note of in respect of the instant controversy.

¶50

3

¶51

! r i. I rr ,li &ii ffiJi HI

¶52

"9. For Rule^{(l l), the followingshallbe substituted'namely:-}

¶53

I l. Method^{of Examination of Assistant PublicProsecutor:-}

¶54

(a) Wr.tten Examination:-^{Candidates wiltberequired} lo3RRear^{for.a written} exarninr*ion^{in 2 Papers} leach^{of 3 hours duration)'Both Papers will be set in} English Language^onty.tt " syllabus^{is given below'}

¶55

Paperl:-lndianConstitution,CodeofCriminalProcedurel9T3and CriminrrlRulesofPracticeandCircularOrders'1990'IndianEvidenceAct iSii, tnaiun^{penalCodeand MinorActs} -^{200 Questions - 200Marks'}

¶56

Paper II:-^{DescriptiveType from theabove syllabusriith emphasis on} Pleadirrgs^{and Drafting- 200 Mark'}

¶57

NOTE

¶58

t)Paperlwillbeobjectiveinnaturecontaining200questions.Candidateshave to ans.ver^{the questions on an OMR Answir sheetsusingBlue/Black Ball} Pointl)enonlyby."t""ti"gtheappropriatechoiceonthecomputer,ifthe test is^{r:onducted in web-mode.}

¶59

2)Paperllwitlbedescriptiveinnature.Candidateshavetoanswerthe q,rlrti ,n, using^{Blue/Btact<penin the question cum answerbookletwhich} will bt' suPPtied^{bY the TSLPRB}

¶60

3)MininrummarkstobesecuredbytheCandidatesinordertoquali$inthe written Examination^{is 407ofor 5Ct, 35%for BCs and 30% forSCs/STs in} each ['aPer.

¶61

4\ For eirch^{question in Paper I, the Candidateshallbe awardedfull marks} assigned to the^{question, if nlltnt choose the correct answer' [n casethe} Candidatehasnotchoosenanyanswer'theCandidatewillbeawardedzero mark for^{that question.In ali other cases,25Yo of the full marks shallbe}

¶62

' awarded as^{negativemark for that question'}

¶63

5)PaperllshallbeevaluatedonlythoseCandidateswhoqualiffinthePaper[.

¶64

(b)Irewrittenexaminationswillbeeitheronlineoroffline(oMRbased). The ohairman,^{r"runtu* State Level police Recruitment Board,Hyderabad} may take^{decisionin this regardfrom timeto time'}

¶65

Paper.II:-^{(DescriptiveExamination)Answerscripts shall be} Scarured/digitalized^{and preserved for record'}

¶66

(c)FinalselectionoftheCandidatesshallbemadestrictlybasedonthemerit asobtainedbythemthroughtheiraggregatescoreintheWrittenExamination out of^{400 marks (200 mar]<s in pup".I and 200marks in Paper [I)."}

¶67

In the abgve^{amendment, the relevant Clauses are 3, 4 and 5 of the Note}

¶68

\

¶69

to Rule 11 of the^{lgg|Rules. on challenge being made in the impugned writ}

¶70

petition by one, of the^{appearing candidates belonging to reserved category'}

¶71

4

¶72

Backward Classes (BCs), the learned writ Court set aside the impugned Clause (vi) of Note to Para l2(A) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025 and directed the authorities to permit the reserved category candidates to compete for Open Category (OC) posts based on their merit, strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. The appellant Board being aggrieved has preferred this writ appeal.

¶73

./

¶74

On behalf of the appellant Board, it is contended that the impugned Clause (vi) of Note to Para 12(A) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025 is nothing but an elaboration of Clause (5) of the Note of the amended Rule 1l of the 1992 Rules and is not in contradiction with Clause (vi) of Note to Para l2(A) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025. He has also distinguished the decision rendered in a previous round of litigation in Writ Petition No.2650 of 2022 and batch which went up to the Apex Court in Special Leave Appeal (Civil) No.14204 of 2024. Vide common^judgment dated 25.09.2023, Writ Appeal No.724 of 2023 preferred against the order dated 28.04.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.2650 of 2022 and batch cases was disposed of by learned Division Bench of this Court with the direction that the appellant Board would consider the cases of the writ petitioners in terms of the directions given by the learned authority by duly exercising powers under Clause 23 of the Notification dated 04.07.2021,. The Apex Court vide judgnent dated 25.11.2025 permitted the petitioners to raise additional contentions in their representation before the competent authority to whom they had been relegated to by the High Court. The

) )

5

II

Apex Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case while disposing of the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant Board funher submits that the impugned Clause (vi) of Note to Para l2(A) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025 does not amount to unreasonable classification. As per the amended Rules also, any candidate whether of reserved category or OC/Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category will have to qualifr Paper-l for evaluation of Paper-II. The impugned clause intends to preserve the amended Rule to promote selection of meritorious candidates. On behalf of the appellant Board, reliance has been placed upon decision of the Apex Coun in the case of Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.r [Civil^{Appeal arisingout of Special Leave Petition (C) No.a743of 2020 dated} 06.01 .20261. He has also relied upon recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaya & Ors. Etc. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Etc.2 [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos.l4517-14539 of 2025 dated 23.03.20261. Learned Standinl; Counsel for the appellant Board submits that following the ratio rendered b;r the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, once the writ petitioner has averiled concession or relaxation in the standard prescribed for the written exam, his selection is to be based solely on the performance in the main exam and intervir:w, if any. [n the present case, the prescription of 40% marks in each Paper-I and Paper-[[ meant for selection to post under OC/EWS could apply to candidates from the reserved category like the writ petitioner who has

¶79

'zozo^{rNlsc ts} 2 zozo INsc zzz

¶80

6

¶81

"li

¶82

got the concession of minimum marks in the written examination for each Paper such as 35o/o for posts reserved for BCs and3DYo for posts reserved for SCs and STs/Orthopedically handicapped. It is submitted that the candidate belonging to a reserved category, if he does not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria prescribed for selection to the post of OC/EWS category, he cannot be permitted to migrate to an open category after having availed of a concession/relaxation in the qualiffing examination. He submits that even though in the instant case there was no preliminary exam like that in the cases of G. Kiran & Ors. (supra) and Chaya & Ors. Etc. (supra), but the principle would apply with equal force in the case of the present writ petitioner. It is further submitted that even as per Clause 12(B) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025, the final selection in each category of posts has to be made strictly on relative merit of the candidates, obtained by them based on their aggregate score after qualifuing in the written examination in Paper-I and Paper-II (400 marks). Therefore, the requirement of qualiffing the Paper-I and Paper-II to compete for the posts under OC/EWS criteria by scoring40Yo and above marks would apply also to any candidate of reserved category like the writ petitioner who wants to migrate to the OC/EWS quota. [n such circumstances, the learned writ Court commiffed an error in directing the authorities to permit the reserved category candidates to compete for open category post based on their merit. It is submitted that the impugned provisions are strictly in accordance with the Rules in force. Therefore, the writ appeal should be allowed.

7

II

\

I i It. t: ilr

Leamed Senior^{Counsel for respondent No.l/writpetitioner on the other} hand submitted^{that there is a difference between the concession and the} eligibility criteria^{to a candidateof the reserved post- The writ petitioneris not} availing any^{conc)ession as such. He is eligible to compete on the basis of his} birth in the^{reseryed classesflor the post advertised. The prescriptionof 35oZ} marks for^{posts reserved for BCs and 30Yo for postsreserved for SCs and} STs/Orthopedicalty^{handicapped,the writ petitioner fulfi[s. F'ven otherwise,the} final selection^{in each category of posts is determined on relativemerit of the} candidates^{as per Clause 12(B) of the Notificationdated 15.08'2025 on the basis} of their aggregate^{score after qualifyingin the written examination in Paper-I} and Paper-ll.^{T'herefore,prescribing40oh marks in Paper-I and Paper-I[ for} eligibitity for^{selection to the posts under OC/EWSunderimpugnedClause(vi)} of Note to Para^{l2(A) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025is not only contrary} ro clause^{(iv) of Note to Para l2(A) of the Notification dated 15'08'2025but} also is not in^{acc,ordance with the amendedRule 11 of the t992 Rules' Learned} senior counsel^{for the writ petitioner has placed reliance upon para19 of the} decision of the^{r\pex Courtin the case of Chaya & Ors' Etc' (supra) where the} legal principtes^{have beenculted out on this issue. He furthersubmits that the} case of the writ^{petitioner on factsare differentfrom the cases of G' Kiran &} Ors. (supra)^{vrherein a concession was providedin a preliminaryexam} whereafter the concerned^{candidatescame into the zone of consideration. In the}

I

8

i: ,l ri il

t,

l' t, I i, !. !

present case, there is no preliminary exam^{which the candidateshave to face. [n} the written exam, the bench mark^{of qualifringmarksfor differentclasses of} persons have been laid down prescribing a further criteria of^{40% in Paper-land} Paper-II for qualiffing for OC/EWS^post is contrary^{to the 1992 Rules and is in} teeth of the eligibility criteria^{prescribed under Clause (iv) of the Note to Para} 12(A) of the Notification dated t5.08.2025.^{Therefore,the impugned order of} the learned writ Court does not^{warrantany interference.}

¶94

We have heard learned counsel for^{the parties and we havetaken note of} the materials placed on record^{includingthe impugned clauses of the} Notification dated 15.08.2025 and^{the amendedRule l l of the 1992 Rules.}

¶95

g. The case at hand is not one where the^{candidateshave faced a preliminary} qualiffing examination for being eligible to come^{into the zone of consideration} for the written exam. As such^{the candidateshave not availed of sucha} concession or relaxation in a^{qualifying examinationlike fee waiver or age} relaxation to create a level^playing field.^{The facts of the case of G. Kiran &} Ors. (supra), therefore, are distinct^{from the presentcase. However, the legal} principles laid down in the case of Chaya & Ors.^{Etc. (supra) at para 19 of the} judgment, which is quoted hereunder, would apply with equal force^{to the facts} of the case of the parties.

¶96

9

¶97

I

¶98

"19. From the aforesaid decisions, the following legal principles can be culled out:-

¶99

(i) A :oncession/relaxation in a qualiffing examination merely enables entry of a candidate into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxstion in the standard prescribed for qualirying the written examination if such relaxation does not affect the merit which has to b€ determined solely on the basis of performance in the main examination and the interview, ifany.

¶100

(ii) A relaxation or concession in the quali$ing examination merely creates a level playing field where no concession or relaxation is granted in the ultimrte selection and the same is solely made on the basis of,rrrer Je merit.

¶101

(iii) If a candidate belonging to a reserved category, does not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria prescribed for a selection, he/she cannot be permi:ted to migrate to an open category.

¶102

(iv) l{igration of a reserved category candidate who has availed of a concer;siodrelaxation in qualiling examination depends on the Recruitment Rules or the employment notitication. If such Recruitment Rules or employment notification permits such migration, the same is permissible.

¶103

(v) Srrch migration shall also be permissible if the Recruitment Rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it."

¶104

In the presrent case, the writ petitioner has not availed ofa concession or

¶105

relaxation in the qualifuing examination like the preliminary exam to enable hlm to come into the zone of consideration for qualiffing the written exam where the merit has to be determined solely on the basis of performance in the main exam and interview, if any. It is not a case where candidates like the writ petitioner have been granted a level playing f,reld to come into the zone of consideration for competing v/ith the open category candidates or migration to the open category quota. On the other hand, it is clear that the impugned Clause (vi) of the Note of Para l2(A) of the Notification dated 15.08.2025 is not in consonance

,

:ttil

r0

I I

with the Clause (5) of the Note to the amended Rule 11 of the^{1992 Rules,} which is extracted hereinabove. Clause⁽⁵⁾ of the Note^{to the amendedRule11} of the 1992 Rutes only provide that Paper-II^{shall be evaluatedonly for those} candidates who qualifu in the Paper-I. The^{amendedRule 1l at no place lays} down the qualiffing mark of 40Yo for candidates.competing^{to come into the} OC/EWS criteria for Paper-l and Paper-II.^{The impugned clause,however,} seeks to introduce the criteria which^{is not in consonance with the 1992 Rules} rather creates an impermissible classification^{by prescribing40% mark in each} of the Paper-I and Paper-ll for being^{eligible to be post for selection for} OCiEWS. A candidate from the reserved^{category like the writ petitioner who} has qualified in the written exam^{and passedboth Paper-Iand Paper-[[ could} still be denied the benefit of final^{selection under Clause 12(B) of the} Notification dated 15.08.2025 to^{OC/EWS posts; Clause l2(B) of the} Notification provides that final selection^{woulddependupon relative merit of} the candidates obtained by them^{based on their aggregatescone after qualiffing} in the written examination in Paper-t^{and Paper-II (400 marks). Therefore,the} combined reading of Clause^(iv) of^{Note to Para 12(A) and the selectioncriteria} at Para t2(B) of the Notification^{dated 15.08.2025 showsthat the introductionof} qualifring marks of 4OYo in Paper-t and Paper-II^{under clause (vi) for being} eligible to be considered for selection of^{postsunder OC/EWS category is not} only beyond the amended Rule I t of the 1992^{Rules but also introducesan} impermissible classif,rcation for those candidates^{belongingto reserved category}

¶111

il

¶112

who on their meri.:^{could be eligible to compete for oc/EWSquota posts. In this}

¶113

regard, it is^{proper to refer to the decision of the Apex court in Union of India}

¶114

v. Sajib Roys^{quoted in the case of Railway Protection Force and others v.}

¶115

prem Chand Kumar and othersa, para l8 thereof, which^{reads as under:}

¶116

" 18. In Union^{of tndiaandOrs.v. Sajib Rov(SLP (C) No'21392'93of20l9)'} this Court held^{that JitendrdSingh (s{pra)is inapplicable tocaseswherethe} recruitrnent^{rules bar migrationof reserved candidatesavailing relaxation in} age/fees to b€^{appoinled againstunreserved vacancies'The Court} summarized^{theprinciplesas follows:}

¶117

"32 .--..whcthcr a^{rescrved candidatcwho has availed r'laxationin} feps/upper age limit to^{panicipateinopencompetitionwithgencBlcandidates} mal' be recruited against^{unrescrvedsiatswoulddepend on thcfacts ofcach} c€s(;. That is to say,^{in the cventthereis noembargointJle recruitmcnt} rul€yemployment nolilication,^{such reserved candidateswho have scored} higher thatl thc last^{s€lectedunreservedcandidateshallbe entitlcdto migrate} and be rccruikd againsl^{unreservedscats.However'ifan embargois imposed} under rclevant^{recruitmcntrules, such rcscrvcd candidatcsshall notbe} pennincd to migrate to^general category^seats."

¶118

\

¶119

It is evident^{from the ratioreferredabovethat in the presentcasethere} was no embarg,J^{imposedunder relevant recruitment Rules that reserved} category candidales^{shall not be permitted to migrateto general categoryseats as} in the facts of the^{present case. The impugned clause in the recruitment} notification, ther:efore, is^{contrary to the 1992 Rules and alsocreates an} unreasonable classification^{which is not in consonance with Articles14 and l6} of the Constituti,rn^of India.^{Therefore,from the conspectusof the entire facts} and circumstances of^{the caseanduponhearing leamed counsel for the parties}

¶120

3 sLn 1c; No.zr92-93 of 20t9, dated 09.09.2025

¶121

o AIn 2025 SC 4150 = 2025 SCC Online SC 19214

¶122

t2

¶123

and the^{principres raid down in the aforesaid decisionsby the Apex court' we} are of the^{considered view that the impugnedorder rendered by the rearned writ} Court^{does not suffer from any error or iltegalitywarrantinginterference'}

¶124