Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited TSSPDCL v. T. Gopal

Court: High Court for State of Telangana

Bench: ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Judgment date: 2024-11-21

Case summary

High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2024-11-21. Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited TSSPDCL v. T. Gopal. Read the...

Judgment text

[ 3413 I HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVETUBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEAL NO: 't127 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent prefened againstlhe Order dated 03/06/2024 in W. P. No. 26676 of 2021 onthe file of the High Court. Between: 1. Telangana State Southem Power Distribution Company Limited TSSPDCL, Rep by its Managing Director Mint Compound Saifabad Hyderabad. 2. The Chief General Manager, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited TSSPDCL Mint Compound Saifabad Hyderabad. ... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WP 2667612021 AND 1. T. Gopal, S/o: Uttam, Aged about 30 years, Occ:Unemployee Hall Ticket No 351625, R/o. H. No. 52971, SomarathThanda Mandal Gandhari Kamareddy District. ... RESPONDENT/WRIT PETITIONER 2.

The State of Telangana, Rep by the Chief Secretary General Administration Department GAD Secretariat Hyderabad. 3. State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary to the Energy Department B R KBhavan Basheerbagh Hyderabad. (Respondent No's. 2 and 3 are formal parties in the Writ Appeal) ... RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 stay the operation of the orders passed in W. P. No. 26676 ot 2021 , Dated. 03. 06. 2024. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI G. VTDYA SAGAR, APPEARING FOR sRr R. VTNOD REDDY (SEN|OR COUNSEL FOR TSTRANSCO) Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU The Court Delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY WRIT APPEA L No.

I 727 of2024 JUDGMENT i fer llon,ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kunnr SttauiLi) This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Iearned single Judge of this court in w. p. No. 26676 of 2o2r, d. ated, 03. 06. 2024. 2. Heard Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for sri R'vinod Reddy, learned Standing counsel on record for the appellants and Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel appearing lor respondent No. I. 3' It has been contended by the appellants that they have issued recruitment notification for the post of Junior Assistant _ cum _ Computer Operator, i. e. , Notification No. 03 of 20lg, dated 28. 09. 2019. In all, 5OO posts of Junior Assistant _ _ Computer cum operator were notilied and the vacancies were notified circle wise, communit5r wise and gender wise.

As per the said notification, 9s%o of the posts were to be filled up with local candidates by giving preference to them and 5% of the posts were to be filled up based upon merit and accordingly, the sarrle was also notified in the Annexure appended to the said Notification and the procedure for ) ,\KS-J & LNA. J \\. rr. No I 1271202{ selection was set out para-Vlll in of the said notification, as per which, selection will be drawn in two parts, the first part wilr comprise 5olo of the posts consisting of combined merit list and the remaining second part will comprise the barance g50/o of the posts consisting of candidates belonging to that District onry and the posts will be filled up following ttre existing Rules of reservation. Respondent No. I has participated in the selection process and later, when his case was not considered for selection as Junior Assistant - cum Computer - Operator, he has approached this Court by way of filing W. P. No.

26676 of 2021, contending that the appella,ts are following the Terangana public Empro5rment (organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 2O1g (for brevity, hereinafter . the referred to as presidential OrderJ. The appellants further contended that TSSpDCL being a Company, the Presidential order has no application and if presidential the order is followed, then it violates Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the appellants are not following the presidential Order and they are only giving preference to local candidates to an extent of 95Vo and that admittedly, the presidential Order is not J AKSJ& I,NA I lV. A. No. l I27l2024 applicable to the appellants, but the respondent understanding of the method of selection, that it is in violation of the Presidential Order, is totally incorrect. . 5.

l,earned Senior Counsel for the appellants lurther contended that Para-V of the notification dated 28. O9. 2019 deals with important provisions governing the recruitment process and Clause-S of the said para states that for 95%o of the posts, preference shall be given to the district candidates. Nowhere, it is stated that selection process is in the form of reservation and merely giving preference would not amount to applying the Presidential Order. He further contended that during the pendency of Writ Petition No. 26676 of 2O2I,learned Single Judge has passed interim order, dated 22. O2. 2022, directing the respondents therein to permit the petitioner therein i. e, respondent No. 1 herein to undergo the proficiency test in computers, however, observed that the petitioner therein, i. e. , respondent No. 1 shall not claim any equities.

When the appellants have taken a stand that they are not adopting the Presidential Order and the Notification categorically states that the appellants would give preference to the local candidates to an extent of 95'/o of the posts, the same could not be understood as reservation. Whenever the word 'preference'is used, it means that if I AKS. J & LNA J W. A. No. I I 2 7/2021 two caldidates are having same merit, then preference will be given L to the local candidates, but the rearned single Judge was of the view that the appelants a-re trying to make reservations in favour of the local candidates, which is totally incorrect. He further contended the learned single Judge has erroneousry came to a conclusion that the appellants are adopting the presidential Order and on the same analogr, they are extending 9,o/o of posts in favour of the local candidates, which is totally incorrect.

6' In support of his submissions, Iearned Senior counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in ltlidamarti Maheshkumqt Vs. State of Maharashtrat,wherein it is held that providing reservation or preference in respect of certain percentage of seats in the medical college or co,eges in each region in favour of those who have studied in schools or colleges within that region' does not amount to violating constitutional mandate of equality. 7. karned Senior Counsel for the appellants had further contended that in the instant case also, the. appellants are giving preference to local candidates arld merely giving preference to local candidates does not amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the ' 1t9a6; z scc s:a ) AKS,J & Li\-A,J W. A. No. l I27l2024 Constitution of India and therefore, appropriate orders be passed in present writ Appeals by setting aside the impugned common order. 8.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent contended that some of the provisions of the Presidential Order issued in G. O. Ms. No. 124, dated 30. 0g. 201g, are being implemented though in the form of preference, the effect of Note-(i) of pARA-vIII of Notification No. ol of 2019, which is appended to procedure of selections in PARA_VIII, is virtually amounting to implementation of the presidential order; that the appellants being a public sector company, the presidential order has no application; arld under Article 371(D) of the Constitution of India, in the State of Telangana, an exception is carved to Articles 14 and 16 0f the constitution of India in the presidential . rder to the extent that 91o/o of the posts are liable . to be filled up only by local candidates and the remainin g s%o ofthe posts are liabre to be filled up by unreserved candidates by incorporating a Note in the procedure for selection i. e.

, Note_(i) appended to pARA_VIII, which reads as follows: 'PARA-VIII: PROCEDURE nOR SELDC? ION: NOTE: (il The selection list w. ill be drawn into two parts. The first part will comprise 5% of the posts consisting of combined merit rist and the remaining second part w l comprise the ba_lance 95%o of t,,e w. A. No. 27D024 posts consisting of candidates belonging to that District only and the posts will be frlled, following the existing rules and rule of reservation. I (ii) (iii) (i") 9. A perusal of the said Note-(i) of PARA-VIII contemplates that selection will be drawn in two,parts. The first part will comprise S% of the posts consisting of combined merit list and the remaining second part will comprise the balance g50/o of the posts consisting of candidates belonging to that District only and the posts will be filled, following the existing rures arrd rule of reservation. 10.

Learned counser appearing for the unofficial respondent further contended that as per the aforesaid Note, persons from other districts are totally eliminated from consideration to the extent of 9i5o/o of the posts, which virtually denies equal opportunity guaranteed under Articres-l4 arrd 16 0f the constitution of India and as Articles- 14 arrd 16 are being violated, the learned single Judge has rightly a,owed the writ petition in favour of the unofficial respondent and directed the appellants to consider the case of the writ petitioner and issue appointment orders to the petitioner therein, i. e. , respondent No. l herein according to his merit and without reference presidential to the Order issued by respondent I I w. A. No. l 12712024 No. 2 vide G. O. Ms. No. l24, GAD, dated 30. 08. 2018 and G. O. Ms. No. 132, GAD, dated 01. 09. 2018, with all consequential benefits. But, the appellants instead of complying with the orders of the learned Single Judge, filed the present Writ Appeal.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent further contended that during the pendency of the Writ Petitions, interim orders were passed (i) directing the respondents therein, i'e', the appellants herein to permit the petitioner therein, i. e. , respondent No. t herein to undergo the proficiency test in computers. Learned single Judge has, however, observed that the petitioner therein shall not claim any equities and any appointment made shall be subject to further orders of this Court. Further, learned counsel contended that in pursuance of the interim order d. ated22. 04. 2022 in W. P. No. 26676 of 2021, respondent No'1 herein has participated in the proficiency test, however, his case has not been considered. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the learned single Judge has allowed the said writ Petition with a direction to the respondents therein to consider and issue appointment orders to the petitioner therein/respondent No.

1 herein according to his merit and without reference to tl. e Presidential order issued by respondent No. l uide G. O. Ms. No. 124, GAD, dated 3O. O8'2018 and T AKS. J & I-NA. J W. A. No. l 12712024 G. O. Ms. No. 132, GAD, dated Ol. O9. 2O7B, with all consequential benefits. 12- This court, having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, is of the considered view that Note-(i) appended to PARA_VIII of notification No. O3 of 2019, dated 28. 09. 2019, is the only paragraph which is r. iolating Articles 14 and r 6 of the constitution of India. The learned single Judge erred in not setting aside Note-(i) of pARA-VIII of notification No. 3/2OL9, dated 28. 09. 2019, therefore, Note_(i) appended pARA_ to VIII of notification No. o3 of 2019 is set aside and the remaining frndings of learned Singre Judge in the impugned order do not warrant interference by this Court. 13.

Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of directing the appellants to consider the case of respondent No. l for the post of Junior Assistant-cum-computer operator against the unfifled vacancies, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaleous petitions, if shall stand closed. SDIM. MANJU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /ffRUE COPY// *SECTION If,FFICER \ To, 1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited TSSPDCL, Mint Compound Saifabad Hyderabad. 2. The Chief General Manager, Telangana State Southem Power Distribution Company Limited TSSPDdL Mint Compound Saifabad Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri R. Vinod Reddy(SC for TSTRANSCO) IOPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Prabhakar Chikkudu, Advocate TOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies TJ @ LS / HIGH COURT DATED:2111112024 1 r 1 Y\ E { 25JAI{M t t D E P A1 JUDGMENT WA. No. 1127 ot 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS 4,,

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.