S Mahesh Vs The State of Telangana

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:4334 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

S Mahesh, S/o: Surender, Age. 36 years, Occ. Unemployee, Rl/o. H.No. 1854, Sai Nagar Colony, Medipally, lt/edchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Health, Medical and Family Welfare Dept, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

2 Director Public Health and Family Welfare Dept., Government of Telangana, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶13

3 The Commissroner, The Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Koti Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

4 The Telangana Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

5 The Member Secretary, Medical Health Services Recruitment Board, Koti, Hyderabad.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the entire action of the respondents n issuance of impugned Memo No. 477lRP-lll2O17, dated 1611112024 whetein il was stated that there were 893 unfilled vacancies, which were subsequently notified through the Medical and Health Services Recruitment Board (MHSRB) via Notification No. 0312022, daled 3011212022, and that all^posts were filled through selection on 271O112024, leaving no vacancies under Recruitment Notification No. 5712012 is illegal, arbitrary, contemptuous, and contrary to the principles of natural

¶18

7

¶19

justice and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteeri tnder Articles 14, 1 6 '19, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently g,l :3sg6 to set aside the impugned Memo No. 477lRP-1t12017, dated 16li1l',t ,24 and direct the respondents to award weightage marks of ten percent (10 I ercent) by duly taking the criteria of date of publication of results o academic ( ralification instead of taking date of appearance of the BSC (Nursing examinati,) , as law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in its Judgment reported in 2017(2 A _ I 736(DB) and direct them to keep one post of Staff Nurse vacant.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c:i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Corr may be pleased to suspend the impugned Memo No. 477lRP-ll/2Oj7, da ed 1611112024 and consequently direct the respondents to reconsider the ; se of the petitioner awarding 7 marks by duly taking into consideration of date c. appearance of BSC (Nursing) degree course examination and consider him for tir . post of Staff Nurse.

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c r ;umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mrr be pleased to direct the respondents to keep one post of staff Nurse vacanl unt I he final adjudication of the matter.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI RAMESH CH|LLA, REPRESit NTTNG M/S CHILLAW ADVOCATES AND LEGAL COII iULTANTS

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5: Gp FOR SERVIT :ES I

¶26

counser ror the RespontTJi;l?ElX,iaXil'ilfryA

¶27

\1 )HANA 'ART'HAD

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent No.4: SRI^p.S. RAJASHEKAR. iC FOR TELANGANA STATE PUBLICE SERVICES COMMISSION

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

li

¶31

@

¶32

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶33

TT{E HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK

¶34

WRIT PF)TITON No.4334 OF 2o25

09.oL.2o.26

Between :

S.Mahesh.

. . . Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangarta,

¶41

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

¶42

Health, Medica-l and Family Welfare Departrnent, Secretariat. Hyderabad and⁴ others.

¶43

... Respondents

¶44

ORDER:

¶45

This Writ Petition is filed under^{Article 226 ofthe}

¶46

Constitution of India, seeking the^{follorving relief}

¶47

"...to issue an appropiate Wi|^{Order orDirection,more} particularly one in the nature of Wit oJ Matdamus^{declaing the} ent[re action oi the respondenls^{an issuanceof impugnedMerno} No.477/RP-ll/2O17, dated 16-11-2024^{tuherein it wasstatedthat} there were 893 unflted uacancies, uhich^{u.tere subsequentlynotified} through tlre Medical and Health^{SeruicesRecruitment Board (MHSRB)} uia Notificatton No.03/2022, dated^{30.12.2022,and that all posts} u.'ere fttted through selection on 27.01.2024,^{leaung no uacatrcies} un.der Recruitment Noti"fication^{No 57/ 2A} 17^{isillegal,arbitrary,} contemptuous, and. contrary to the^{principtesof natural} iustice^and uiotatiie of the fundamental ights^{guaranteed underArticles 14,16,} 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India^{and <:onsequentlApleasedto} set aside the impugned^{tulemoNo.477/ RP-II/20 17' dated 16 11 2O24}

2

PK.J up 433.+ 2025

-)

and dtrect the respondents to all)ard weightage morl ; of ten percent (1O%) blj dttlg taking tlp citeia of date of publicat 'n^{of results of} academic qualification inste.,d of taking date of ap, earttnce of the BSC (Nursing) examination as^to.'.u laid dou.tn bg this ron'ble Courl :-n its Judgment reported in 2O1 i (2) .^LB 736 (DB) tu'.t direct thetm to kee;t one post of Sta,fJ Nurse uacant and lo pr-,.r' .. "

¶52

Brief facts leading to the frling of the pr(: :nt Writ Petition are that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. Io.6536 of 2O2l challenging the action of the respondents therei in reducing the educational qualilication weightage marks . .r,arded to him pursuant to Notification No.57/20 17 dated 08 . .2017 relating to recruitment to the post of Staff Nurse. This⁽ r urt. bv an order dated i3.08.2A24, directed the respondents t rerein to au,ard weightage marks of 7 to the petitioner and to co;ider his case for appointment to the post of Staff Nurse in a,-:,: rdance with his merit against any unfiiled vacancy availa l e pursuant to Notification No.57 l2Ol7 dated 08.1 1.2017. In purported compliance with the said order, respondent '1o.4^{iss ued the} impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 stating that ro vacalcies are available under Notihcation No.57/2017. Aggr^t ued thereby, the petitioner has hled the present Writ Petition.

7

3

PK,J Wp,4334 2025

.:1

Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel representing M/s Chillarv Advocates and legal ConsulLants, learned counpel for the petitioner; learnecl Government Pieader for Services-l for respondent Nos. 1, 2 arrd 5, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Public Service Commission, appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri M.P.K. Aditya, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, appearing for respondent No.3

¶58

Learned counsel for the petitioner subrrrits that it is highly improper and misleading that respondent No.4 has addressed a letter dated 31.O8.2O24 to respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the indenting departments to furnish the vacancies, if any, under Recruitment Notification No.57 l2Ol7. Respondent Nos.2 and 3, uide letters dated 28.09 .2024 and O4.O9 .2024 respectively, informed that there were 893 unhlled vaca.:ncies and all those vacalcies have been notified through respondent No.5 uide Notilrcation No.O3 /2022 dated 30. 12.2022. However, respondent No.4 frled its counter-affidavit before this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2O2l on 19.07.2024, making no mention whatsoever of any

a.\

4

PK,-I Wp 133+ 2025

subsequent recruitments. Had such crucial^{r Lfor-rnation been} disclosed, the petitioner would have impleacl: I the . necessary parties and sought appropriate reiief, r-'hich br^-rorv r'.'ottld have been effectivelv implemented. Hence, the delib: ate suppression of this material fact, which is crucia-l for adjuci ation, reflects a lack of seriousness in the proceedings, ther', [v^r,r'ast ing^the precious time of the judiciary. It is further subr.r ttecl that in vierr' of the conduct of the respondents, it is^just : td necessary to impose costs to prevent such deliberate misrepr:^.entations in the future and to uphoid the sanctity of judicial p r rceedings. It is further submitted that one of the contention ol .he petitioner in the aforesaid notification is that the notificatior is not llna-lized nor have posting orders been issued. It is, tht:rt bre, un<lerstood that the number of vacancies is more and the rrt aber of qualified candidates rs less. Therefore, following the prin,: cle of reckoning the date of appearance in the examinatir r for a"r'arding educational qualihcation weightage, as laid dov., . b1, this Court, the petitioner's clairn may be considered r ithout causing prejudice to anyone. Therefore, the impugrL, d memo dated

I

5

PK,J Wp_4334_2025

Y/

L6.11.2024 issued by respondent No.4 ls illega-I, arbitrary and contrar)' to principles of natural justice.

¶68

Per contra, iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 had issued recruitment Notification No.57/2017 dated 08. ll.2OIT for hlling up 1196 posts of StarT Nurse by way of direct recruitment, comprising 1 I 15 posts in respondent No.2 - Director of public Health and Family Welfare and 87 posts in respondent No.3 _ Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. Subsequently, an ad,Jendum was issued enhancing the totai number of notified posts to 33 1 1. [t is further submitted that, in complialce with the order dated 13.Og.2O24 passed by this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2021, respondent No.4 issued the impugned Memo dated t6.11.2024, informing the petitioner that his selection could not be considered on the ground that the unfilled vacancies under Notification No.57/2017 had already been carried forward to the next recruitment, in terms of G.O. Ms. No.B1 dated 22.02.1992 and G.O. Ms. No.544 dated 04. 12.Iggg. Accordingly, it is contended that Notification No.O3 /2022 was issued by respondent No.5, pursuant to which all such carried-

<br>

r)

6

PK.J wt) +:13,r,2025

fonvard vacancies were filled. It is further subrr tted that as the recruitment process for the posr of Staff Nurse i presenti.l, [6ing undertaken by respondent No.S and not bv r rspondent No_4, respondent No.4 examined the matter and c,r Lciucled that no further action could be taken by it in respect : the petirioner,s claim

¶74

Learned Government Pleader appea_ring for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 submits that, in complialce r,,",ir.: the orde:r dated 13.08.2024 passed by this Courr in W.P. Nc 6536 ol 2021 , responclent No.4 issued Memo dated 16.I1.2Ot, ,^{inform ing the} petitioner that it was not possible to consi<[ r his case for appointment as the unhlled vacancies Lrr ( er Notification No.57 I2Ol7 had already been carried forvva r 1 to thc next recruitment cycle, in terms of G.O. Ms. No.81 <t ted 22.02.1997 ancl G.O. Ms. No.544 dated 04. t2.1998. It is f _ -ther submitted that, accordingly, Notification No.O3l2022 i, as issued by' respondent No.5 and a_11 such carried-forward sacalcies were filled. It is contended that, out of 3311 posts of [i aff Nursc, 24 18 posts were filled, rvhile the remaining 893 posts r< rrained unfilled

7

PK,J wP 4334_2025

Y

v

due to non-availability of eligible caldidates in certain reserved categories in respondent Nos.2 an,J 3 departments.. lt is also submitted that the vacancies which remained unhlled on account of non-availability of eligible candidates in the respective categories were handed over by respondent No.4 to the concerned departments/units and were carried forward to the subsequent recruitment cycle, to be filled only by candidates belonging to those very categories. Caldidates belonging to other categories cannot claim over such vacancies, as the same would amount to violation of the resen ation poricy. It is further submitted that the same principle applies to unclaimed or non_joining vacancies, which are required to be notified alresh in accordance with Ruie 6 and G.O. Ms. No.B1 dated 22.02.1997. Since all 893 unfilled vacancies were carried forward due to .non availability of eligible candidates irt the respective categories, the question ol issuing appointment orders in favour of the petitioner croes not arise. Moreover, the recruitment process has been concluded and the selected candidates have already joined duty. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

0

a

PK,.J wp 133a_2O25

7 . This Court has taken note of the subnr ssions made^by learned counsel for the respective parties r rd perused^the materia-1 availahle on record.

¶84

Admittedly, the petitioner has filed the prt:, ent Writ Petition challenging the impugned Memo dated 16.1 .2024 and aJso seeking a consequential direction to the resp r rdents to award educationa,l qualification weightage of ten 1r, rcent ( 1O%) b1' reckoning the date of publication of results rf the academic q43lification, instead of the date of appearar :e in the B.Sc. (Nursing) examinatitrn, as ha,i$ down by this Cot.r - in its^judgment repor$-ih 2017 (21 ALB 736 (DB). However the issue with regard to ar,varding educational qualifrcation^, 'eightage to the petitioner already has been categorically decidel by this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2027, uide order dated 13.08.2( I 4, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to re-examine that asp, ct in the present Writ Petition. The limited ald pivotal issu-. that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is wheer the impugned Memo dated 16.Ll.2024 is valid and sus1 r-inable in 1aw. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine the r ratter only to the

¶85

L

9

PK,J Wp 4334 2025

Y

al

extent of the iegality artd validity of the impugned Memo dated t6.7t.2024.

¶91

On perusal of rhe rec,.rd, it is evident that Notihcation No'57 /2077 was issued by respondent No.4 on o8. rr.2or7 for recrultment to the post of Sta-ff Nurse, wherein the serection process was based on merit in the written test (70 marks) ard experience (30 marks). The written test was conducted on 11.03.2018, following which the merit list and the list of candidates for Certifrcate Verifrcation in the ratio cf 1 :2 were published on 07.1 l.2O2O and IZ.O2.2O2 1 on the ofhcial v;ebs6 of respondent No.4. Subsequent to the pubiication of list of Certihcate Verification, respondent No.2 revised service u,eightage marks for certain candidates. In addition, 53 corrections ivere carried out to recti$ technica-l errors. Accordingly, the merit list was revised. Based on the revised merit list, shortlisted candidates were caled for certificate verifrcation from 2s.o2.2021 to O5.O3.2O21 at respondent No.3,s offrce (TGSpSC, prathibha Bhavan, Nampally). Further, a web note was issued by respondent No.4 on O4.OS.2O2I regarding changes in service

o

10

PK,J wp 4334-2025

weightage marks. Thereafter, respondent No.4^pL :lished a revised selection notification after relinquishment by sel cted candidateS. '"vherein it^{was categoricallyclarified that the rt} zised provisional selection List was issued only after receiving relirL, uishments. It is also significant to note that, as per the web not<, respondent No.4 had issued notihcation for hliing up 3311 vacanc es of Staff Nurse in respondent Nos.2 and 3 departments. Or-¹ of these, 2418 vacalcies w,ere filled, while the remaining 893 vrr alcies remained unfilled due to non availability of eligible candi<[ tes in respective communities and zones. It was also made clear in the said web note that as per G.O. Ms. No.81 dated22.O2.l') t7 there sha,ll be no waiting list ald the unfilled vacancies a.lr required to be carried forward to the next recruitment/notifrcati n.

¶96

On a careful examination of the record, it l evident that the impugned Memo dated 16.11.2024 merely ref :cts the factual position regarding the unfrlled vacancies l r der Notification No.57 l2Ol7. As per the web note dated 04.05., )21, out of 33 11 salctioned posts of Staff Nurse, 2418^posts wer frlled, while the remaining 893 vacancies remained unfilled due t , non-availability

11

PK,J Wp 4334_2o25

77

of eligible candidates in specific reserved categories and zones and as per G.O. Ms. No.B 1 dated 22.O2.1997, these unhlled.vacancies cannot be claimed by candidates from other categories and are required to be carried iorward to the subsequent recmitment/notification.4,- Therefore, the petitioner's contention that the respondents have suppressed material facts in the counter-afhdavit is contrary to the material availabie on record The petitioner should have been vigilant in reviewing the information available on respondent No.4's website instead of blaming the respondents for facts that were a1read1, publicly accessible

¶101

1 1. Moreover, it is evident that the recruitment process for the post of Staff Nurse is currently being conducted by respondent No.5. Further, in compliance with the directions of this Court in W.P. No.6536 of 2O2I, respondent No.4 has no authority to select the petitioner for the barried-forward vacalcies. Admittedly,^the 893 unfrlled vacancies under Notilication No.57/2017 were carried forward to the subsequent recruitment, which was notified by respondent No.S uide Notifrcation No.O3/2022 dated 30.12.2O22.

(f

6

L2

PK,J Wp 4334 2025

A1l such posts were hlled on 27.01.2024 ancl^, cnsequently, no vacancies remain under Notification No.57/201'z Therefore, this Court is not inclined trr grant aly relief in favour^{r I} the^petitioner.

¶107

In vier.r' of the foregoing discussion zt d the material available on record, it is clear that the impug;t ed Memo dated 16.11.2024 reflects the factual position regarc ng the unfilled vacancies under Notification No..57/2017. Since all 893 carriedforward vacancies were subsequently fi1led thrr ugh Notihcation No.O3/2O22 by respondent No.5 on 27.01.20) l, no vacancies remain available for consideration under the aid notihcation. Therefore, the petitioner's claim for . ;pointment or reconsideration of educationa,l qualif-rcation ix'eightage is unsustainable. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable¹ r be dismissed.

¶108