- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Telangana High Court
- /
- Meritorious Reserved Category...
Meritorious Reserved Category Candidates Entitled To Get General Category Seat: Telangana High Court Reiterates
Fareedunnisa Huma
5 Jun 2024 1:00 PM IST
While addressing a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission's (APPSC) selection process for Child Development Project Officers (CDPO), the Telangana High Court has reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in the General category.Relying on Supreme Court's...
While addressing a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission's (APPSC) selection process for Child Development Project Officers (CDPO), the Telangana High Court has reiterated that the reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get seat/post in the General category.
Relying on Supreme Court's decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Shobana, the Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice N.Tukaramji observed,
“If we examine the methodology adopted by APPSC and steps admittedly taken by them in the impugned selection, it will be clear like cloudless sky that they have taken steps contrary to the law laid down in K. Shobana case (cited 3.d supra). Instead of preparing a general merit list, they filled up the backlog vacancies first. They should have filled up the regular vacancies, which they have not done. Apart from this, they treated one of the SC candidate as reserved candidate despite the fact that she secured more marks than the marks obtained by last OC candidate merely because she got benefit of age relaxation.”
The case originated from an Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal matter that was transferred to the High Court following the Tribunal's abolition after the bifurcation of the Erstwhile State of AP. The petitioner, who belonged to the SC Community had cleared the written examination and interview but was not included in the final selection, list despite securing more marks than those selected for the post of CDPO.
During proceedings, it emerged that three SC candidates had scored higher than the last open-category candidate, warranting their placement in the open category. However, the APPSC incorrectly positioned them within the reserved category, denying the petitioner a rightful opportunity within her own category.
The petitioner's counsel argued that the APPSC's approach violated the Supreme Court's directive in K. Shobana, which mandates the preparation of a general merit list irrespective of category, followed by filling backlog and, finally current year reserved vacancies. The APPSC's actions deprived deserving SC candidates, including the petitioner, of their due consideration.
The APPSC, represented by counsel, acknowledged the procedural errors but suggested a pragmatic solution: accommodating the petitioner in a vacant position arising from another candidate's resignation. This approach aimed to avoid the cascading effects of undoing the entire selection process.
The Court, meticulously examining the facts and legal arguments, concurred with the petitioner's contention. It recognized that the APPSC's failure to follow the K. Shobana guidelines denied the petitioner her rightful consideration within the SC category.
However, considering the practical implications of redoing the entire selection process, the Court accepted the APPSC's proposal. It directed the APPSC to treat one SC category post as vacant, allowing the petitioner's case to be evaluated on merit.
“Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case' we deem it proper to interfere because the APPSC has not prepared the selection list by adopting steps correctly. The petitioner had a valuable right to be considered as per her own merit in SC category' The respondent must consider her as meritorious SC category candidate in her own category by treating one post as lying vacant.”
If found suitable, she would receive a notional appointment from the date her peers were appointed, ensuring notional benefits but no monetary arrears.
Case Title: . Nirmala Jyoth vs The Telangana State Public Service Commission, rep., by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors.
Case number: Writ Petition (TR) No.4617 of 2017
Counsel for petitioner: Senior Counsel G Vidya Sagar representing Adv. Talat Madiha.
Counsel for respondents: Ramgopal Rao, S.C. For TSPSC, B Mukherjee, standing counsel Counsel for R.3, Sathyanarayana, S.C. for APPSC & M. Srinivasa rao