Seelam Surendar Reddy v. The State of Telangana
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-11-19. Seelam Surendar Reddy v. The State of Telangana. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Specia I Original J urisd iction) THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION NO: 20741 OF 2020 Between: Seelam Surendar Reddy, S/o Prabhakar Reddy, aged about 25 years, Occ. Unemployee, R/o. 7-269, Narayanapuram Village, Thallada l\,4andal, Khammam District. Telangana State. . ,. PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principle Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The lnspector of General of Police, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Kammam, Khammam District. 4. The Telangana State Level Police Recruilment Board, Hyderabad, rep by its Chairman. ...
RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or a direction more particularly one in the nalure of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceed ing/Memorandum d1. 1410912020 vide Rc. No. 223lRectt. /Gen 1 . 112O19 issued by the 4th respondent in cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner with Regd. No . 31041544 as SCTPC (TSSP) in pursuance to the Recruitment Notification - 2018 despite the acquittal by the Honorable Addl. Judicial lt/agistrate of 1 Class in C. C. No. 666 of 20'l 7, dt. 1111212019 by an reasonable doubts as illegal, contrary to law, contrary to the Judgment in C. C. No. 666 of 2017, dt. 1111212019 apa( from violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the same by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner with Regd. No.
31041544 as SCTPC (TSSP) in pursuance to the Recruitment Notification - 2018 as per the procedure established by law. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 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 direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner, Regd. No. 31041544 for appointment to the post of SCTPC (TSSP) by suspending the operation of the impugned memorandum d|. 1410912020 vide Rc. No. 223lRectt. /Gen 1 . 1/2019 issued by the 4th respondent, cancelling the provisional selection of the petitioner to the post SCTPC (TSSP) in pursuance to lhe Recruitment Notification - 2018 pending disposal of the Writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI c. TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: SPECIAL GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.
20741 ot 2020 ORDER This wril petition is being disposed of ol the odmission sloge wilh lhe consent of both porlies. 2. This wril petition is filed seeking the following relief :- "..... to issue a Writ, Order or a direction more partjcutarly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, dectarjng the proceedjng/ Memorandum dl:1 4. 09. 2070 vide Rc. No. 223 / Rectt. /Genl. 'l / 20'l 9 issued by the 4th respondent in cancetting the provjsionaI selectjon of the petitioner wjth Regd. No. 31041544 as SCT PC (TSSP) jn pursuance to the Recruitment Notification 2018 despjte the acquittat by the Hon'bte Addt. Judiciat Magistrate of I CLass in C. C. No. 666 o( 2Q17. dt: 11. 12. 2019 by att reasonabLe doubts as ittegat, contrary to [aw, '11. 12. 2019 contrary to the judgment in C. C. No. 666 of 2017, dt: apart from viotative of Artictes 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentty set-aside the same by directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner with Regd. No.
31041544 as SCT PC (TSSP) in pursuance to the Recruitment Notjfication 20'18 as per the procedure estabtished by law and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper according to the facts of the case. " 3. Heord Sri G. Tuhin Kumor, leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioner, ond the leorned Speciol Governmenl Pleoder oppeoring for the respondents. 4. ll hos been contended by the petitioner thot he is fuily eligible ond quolified to be oppoinled for the posl of Police Consloble. 'lhe While so, respondents hove issued o recrultment Notiflco'tion on 3l . 05. 2018 ond pursuont to the soid Notificotlon, he hos responded 10 the some ond of ler undergoing regu or se eclion process, he wos selected for the post of Stipendiory Codel Troinee - Police Constoble (SCT PC), Telongono Stole Speciol Police (TSSP) on 24. 09. 2019.
ln the process of selection, he hos to fill up one ottestotion f orm in the month of October, 201 9 inf orming os to whether ony criminol cose is pending ogoinst him. Accordingly, he I l '(. uQ 20741 2020 hos filled lhe soid oltestotion form disclosing obout the foci of pendency of o criminol cose ogoinst him in C. C. No. 666 of 2017 on the file of Addilionol Judiciol Mogistrote of Firsi Closs, Modhiro. Khommom. 5. Leorned counsel oppeoring for the petitioner contended thot eorlier, criminol proceedings were initioted ogoinsi the pelitioner in C. C. No. 666 of 2017 on the file of Addilionol Judiciol Mogistroie of Firsl Closs, Modhiro, Khommom, ond the petitioner wos ocquitted in lhe soid C. C. vide judgmenl doted I 1. 12. 2A19 ond, iherefore, ot present, no criminol coses ore pending ogoinst the pelitioner. Be tho'l os it moy. the respondenis hove issued o Show-couse Notice on \9. 02.
2020 osking os to why the provisionol seleciion of the petitioner could nol be concelled on the ground of his involvement in o criminol cose ond olso pendency of the soid crinrinol cose Pursuont to the soid Show-couse Notice. the petitioner hos submilted o detoiled explonotion on 13. 03. 2020 moking it very cleor thot lhe criminol cose which wos pending ogoinst him ended in ocquiitol vide judgmenl doted 11. 12. 2019 ond requesled the respondents not to loke ony oclion ogoinst him pursuont to the Show-couse Notice doted 19. 02. 2020. But, the respondents, without considering lhe explonotion submitled by the petiiioner hove concelled the provisionol selection of the pelitioner vide proceedings doted 14. 09. 2020. Chollenging ihe some, the present writ petilion is filed. 6. Leorned counsel oppeoring for the peiilioner furlher contended lhot lhe petitioner hos odmittedly disclosed oboui the pendency of criminol cose ogoinsl him in lhe oiteslotion form ond AKS,T 'l.
4kP_20741_2020 'lhe petilioner loter the criminol cose pending ogoinsl ended in ocquittol vide judgment doted 1l 12. 2A19 Theref ore, oppropriole orders be possed in the wril petition direcling the respondents'lo re-consider the cose of the pelilioner for oppointmen't to the post of Slipendiory Codet Troinee - Police Consloble (SCT PC), Telongono Stote Speciol Police (TSSP). 7. Leorned Counsel follhe petitioner further con'tended thot in Avtor Singh v. Union of lndio ond olhersr, ihe Hon b e Suprenre Court hod eloborotely considered on idenlicol rssue wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of poro '38' gove certoin eloborole direclions os lo how the outhorities hove io deol wilh respecl lo involvement in criminol coses ond whether there is o chorge of morol turpitude or not? ln view of the guidelines fromed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in the obove soid cose.
let the cose of the petitioner olso be considered in occordonce with the judgmenl of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avlor Singh's cose (l supro). He further z conlended thot in Avtor Singh v. Union of lndio ond others ot poro '4' of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Courl hos reiteroied lhe very some issue in Avtor Singh's cose (1 supro). Therefore, 'the oppropriote orders be possed in the writ petition directing respondents to re-consider the cose of the petitioner ofresh in lerms of the low loid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Couri in obove soid coses ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce wilh ow B. Leorned Speciol Government Pleoder oppeoring for lhe respondents hos contended thot the informotion soughl for trom every selected condidote in the ottestolion form osking whelher (20r6)Bscc471 ' Ci\ il Appeal No. I 8 7q8 oi:0 I 7 (kJ! r-l - -2U I -'(arising tiom SLP (C) No. 20525 of20l I dt.
2l-07-2016) { ,tttP 20741 2020 ony criminol cose is pending ogoinst thern ol ony point of lime, does not meon thoi it omounis to pendency of ony criminol cose only ol the time of filling up of otteslolion form ond the petitioner wos not osked 10 give the slotus of pendency of criminol cose os on the dole of filling up of oliestoiion form. Therefore, in view of lhe involvemenl of the petitioner in the criminol cose, the respondents hove rightly rejecied the cose of the petitioner. Hence, there ore no merits in the writ peiition ond the some is lioble 1o be dismissed. 9. This Courl, hoving considered ihe rivol submissions mode by the leorned counsel for the porties, is of the considered view thol the respondenls hove concelled lhe provisionol seleclion of the petilioner withoul following ihe guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Courl in Avtor Singh's cose {l supro) ond Avtor Singh's cose (2 supro).
Therefore, ends of juslice would be met if the respondenls ore directed to consider the cose of the petilioner in lerms of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Coud in the 'two obove referred coses cnd the impugned order is lioble lo be set oside ond occordingly it is set oside. The respondenis ore directed to exomine the cose of lhe petitioner in ierms of the iow loid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avlor Singh's cose (l supro) ond Avtor Singh's cose (2 supro) in vlew of ocquitlol of ihe petitioner by the competent criminol court ond poss oppropriote orders in occordonce with low within o reosonoble period of 1ime, preferobly wilhin o period of four weeks from the dote of receipt of o copy of ihis order. 10. Wilh the obove directions, the writ petition is ollowed. No order os to costs ,tila_21741_2020 Pending miscelloneous pe'liiions, if ony, sholl stond closed. SD/. B. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT BEGISJRAR ,TRUE COPY/I ) SECTIdN OFFICER To, 1.
The State of Telangana, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The lnspector of General of Police, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Kammam, Khammam District. 4. The Chairman, Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad 5. One CC to Sri G. Tuhin Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to Special GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7. Two CD Copies SM HIGH COURT DATED:19/1 'l /2020 sT,,,i iaE I 6 ORDER (^i( q :) WP. No. 20741 of 2020 (, z q 25 No',m o -b * * D F. sparcP, ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS 1 N\ " It lDln
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.