K. Srikanth vs High Court for the State of Telangana

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) I\4ONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.

NAVEEN RAO AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.

SREENIVAS RAO Between: K.

Srikanth, S/o.

Ramachandran, aged 34 years, R/o.9-4-618, Saphagiri Colony, Near hasnapur Road No.3, Karimnagar District.

Hall Ticket No.

912006429' ...PETrroNER AND '1 .

High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad Rep by its Registrar (Recruitment) 2.

The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar District, Karimnagar.

3.

Erukala Sarin Kumar, S/o Laxmaiah Rl/o.

H.No.

2-179, Nagepally Village, Ramageri Mandal, Peddapally District - 505576 Hall Ticket No.9'12003377 4.

Gummala Chandra Shekar, S/o.

Mallaiah R/o.

H.

No.

1-95/1 , Velgatoor Village and Mandal, Jagityal District - 505172 ...RESpoNDENrs Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) Declare that the 3rd Respondent and 4th Respondent are ineligible to be considered for the Post of Office Sub-Ordinate in terms of the Notification No.9/2019 dated.

31.07.2019, since they possess higher qualifications than the prescribed qualifications, (ii) Direct the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent to delete the names of 3rd Respondent and 4th Respondent and other similarly situated persons who possess higher qualification and (iii) consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the candidature of the petitioner in those resultant vacancies as per his merit in the selection list [ 3306 ] WRIT PETITION NO: 34715 OF 2022 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition und =. ion und =.r Section 151 CPC praylng thal ln the circumstances stated in the affidavit filer in support of the petition, the Hiqh C()ud may be pleased to direct 1st Respon lent and 2nd Respondent to consider tl-e representation of Petitioner dated: 01.06.2022 by deleting the names of 3rd Respondent and 4th Respondent and c rnsider the candidature of Petitioner for selection to the post of Office Sub-Ordir ate Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for Respondent Nos.

1 & 2: SRI ANAND KUMAR KAPOOR (sc FoR rHc) The Court made th: following: ORDER l HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.34715 OF 2022 ORDER | [Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naueen Rqo) Heard Sri G.

Sai Prasen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for respondents I and 2.

2.

In pursuant to the recruitment notihcation No.9 of 2079 dated 31.O7.2019 for recruitment to the post of Office Subordinate in the Telangana Judicial Ministerial Service, petitioner applied and participated in the selections.

Petitioner belongs to BC-A Category.

In this writ petition, petitioner challenges the selection of respondents 3 and 4 on the ground that both of them have passed lOe Class examination and therefore, they are ineiigible to compete. to the post of Oflice Subordinate and but for their selection, petitioner would have been selected and appointed.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 fairly submits that as per the recruitment notification, the requirement is a person should fail in SSC to be eligible to compete, whereas respondents 3 and 4 have passed the SSC examination and therefore, they are not eligible.

It appears this I I I factum \ /as not knou,n to rcspondents 1 and 2, when their names w:re considercd for sclection and erppoirrtment.

4.

Cle use I of lhe recruitment notification de als rvith qualihcat ion prescribed. [t reads as under : .I. nder : .I.

I 'UALIFICATION PRESCRIBED : Must have passed 7d, Class examir:a:ion or its equivalent examination, Canclidates. rvho failed IOG Class s'iil be considered cligitrl<, but those who have higher qualifications than that will not be considered eligible. 'lhe applicants have to stirte irr tbeir online application, the professional skil;s t.tre,y have, such as cooking, carpentr v.-. plumbi;.rg, electrical and painting ctc., For thc purl)csc of performing duties \r,ith respect of their professional skills at thc residences of Ju,lir:ial Ofhcers. " 5.

Fro n a reading ol the above clause, it is clear that a person to ,rompete to the post of Office Sr.rbordinate must have passed 7d Class or its equivalent examination and failed in 10u Class.

Tt is clause further makes it clear that those who have higher qu tlilication than prescribed would not be considered as eligible.

Petitioner has enclosed the SSC certificates of responder ts 3 and 4.

From these certificates il. is seen that both of th(:m have passed 10ft Class and in terms of Clause I of the recrui rnent notification, it is clear that both of them were ineligible ro compete to the post of Office Subordinate.

Therefore, their selection is ex facie lllegal. .1 6.

Having fo]utrd prirno facie that the selection of respondents 3 and 4 was ille gal, this Court by order dated O8.O9 .2022 granted stay of appointing respondents 3 and 4 as Oflice Subordinates and notice was issued.

Though noLices are served, respondents 3 and 4 have not entered appearance.

7 .

Having regard to the material placed on record which clearly reflect that respondents 3 and 4 were not qualified to compete to the post of Office Subordinates, their selection is set aside.

8.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed to the extent oI prayers I and 2.

Consequently, respondents I and 2 are directed to fill up the slots occupied by respondents 3 and 4 in the merit list by next meritorious candidates. andidates.

If petitioner is coming within the eligibility criteria, he should be included in the revised merit list.

Pending closed. miscellaneous petitions, if any, shail stand SN/.T-KRISHNA KUMAR --bepurvREGlsrRAR \ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, MBC BS iff$[,giffitr#Tffid-8ffiJ,''t*lr;'"""' I I I I I I I V I{IGH COURT DAT'ED: 3111012022 1<l9 3iAiE [ [ ii'.]u 2m # -..- ( o.J i:e\" <:, ORDER WF'.

No.il,41' 1 5 of 2022 ALLOWING THE \AII.IIT PETITION \ WII'I.IOUT COSTS