Ravi Kumar Manda v. Telangana State Public Service Commission
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: APARESH KUMAR SINGH,G.M. MOHIUDDIN
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-21. Ravi Kumar Manda v. Telangana State Public Service Commission. Read the judgment and case...
Judgment text
[ 3488 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR STNGH AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL NO: 309 OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Against The Oder Dated 0110312024 in W. P. (TR)NO 6219 of 2017 on the file of the High Court. Between: Ravi Kumar Manda, S/o Venkataiah, aged about 42 years,occ Unemproyed, R/o H. No. 1-156, KK. Nagar, Jadcherla, Mahaboobnalar District, Telanlana ... PET|T|ONERyPET|T|ONER AND 1. Telangana. State Public Service bommission, Rep. by its Secretary, Nampalty, Hyderabad. 2. State of Telengana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 3. Osmania General Hospital, Rep. by its Superintendent, Secunderabad 4. M, Srikanth, S/o T.
Vijay kumar, Aged about 42 year , Occ Ex employee of Motor Vehicle lnspector), District Transport Office (DTO), LS? qQ_(Assistant Yadgiri-Bongiri, Nalgonda District . ... RESPON DENTS/RESPON DENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI J. SUDHEER Counselfor the Respondent No. 1: SRI P. S. RATASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: sRl SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA, GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Senior Counsel REP SRI R. R. A"'ASEKHAR RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGTI COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF. IUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. M. MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEA No. 309 of 2024 Dated: 21. 01. 2026 Between: Ravi Kumar Manda Appellant and Telangana State l'Jublic Service Commission. Rep. by its Secretarl', Nampalll'. Hyderabad, and 3 others. ... Respondents JUDGMEN'I': Learned counsel Sri J. Sudheer appears lbr the appellant. Sri P. S. Ra.
jasekhar, leamed Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Servicc Cornmission. appears tbr respondent No. l. Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana I{ao, learned Government Pleader for Services-l, appears for respondents No. 2 and 3. Leamed Senior Counsel Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, representing learned counscl Sri It. Rajasekhar Rao. appears fbr respondent No. 4. 2. The learned writ courr disrnissed w. p (TR). No. 62r9 of 2017 on 01. 03. 2024, rvhich was filed by the appellant seeking his re-medical examination by referring him to a different hospitalAyledical Board in rcspect of the selection process fbr Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector (AMVI) and to appoint hirn as AMVI after interview by setting aside the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 or in the alternative to direct respondents No. l to 3 to create supernumerary post with all corlsequential benefi ts. 3. Be it indicated here that respondent No. 4 was appointed as AMVI on 11. 08. 2016 pursuanr to the Notification No.
l412025 dated 23. 09. 2015, rvhereas the appellant approached the learned Andhra P. radesh Administrative'l'ribunal at Hyderabad on 01. 08. 2016 by filing o. A. No. 3079 of 2016, rvhich stood transferred to this court and renumbered as w. P (TR). No. 6219 of 2017. Respondent No. 4 was impleaded by an order dated 04. 12. 2019 in I. A. No. 3 of 2019 which was filed on 09. 04. 2019 i. e.. after three years of his appointment. The / learned writ court after hearing the parties held as under: "9. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court flrnds that the petitioner having qualified in the written examination failed during the course of medical examination only in the category of chest expansion. The examination was conducted in the year 2016 and now, we are in the year 2024. After such a long lapse of time, it w'ould not be propcr to perntit the petitioner to undergo physical ; I J examination test afresh.
Further, as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ponnala Praveen v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government and others (2017 (3) ALT 728), constitution of re-medical examination board only on the request of I unsuccessful candidates without an1 allegation of corrtrpt practice by the I a teanr ol- doctors rvho took the physical meastlrenlents is not u'arranted. In fact, the Division Bench has gone to the extent of cancelling the appointrnents made on the basis oI the repon of the remedical exarnirration board. The decision in Varadhi Babu Kishore v. Andhra I Pradesh Public Service Commission, rep.
by its Secretary and Others I (2020 I SCC Online AP 2072), relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is also distinguishable on facts, as in the said case, the challenge was not that there was no request for re-constitution of the Medical Board but the challenge was to the effect that the report was It i tampered by adding/irtterpolating certaitt uttrnbers in the report regarding l i chest expansion. The petitioner therein asserted that he had chest expansion of 5 cms, which rvas recorded by the ir4edical Board but the subsequent interpolations showed as i1' he had a chest expansion of 4. 5 cms, only. The Court has called for the nredical report and on perusal of the said report. it came to the conclusion that the figure of '4' was added in lront of '5'to make the expansion 4. 5 cms.. and it r. vas in these circumstances, that re-rnedical exanrination rvas dirccted in the case of the petitioner therein.
Horvever, in the case on hand, it is noticed that the petitioner has been found to be unsuccessful and thereafter he has made representation for constitution of Medical Board for re-examination. At this point of time i. e. , after nearly eight vears after the examination, it will not be possible to constitute the Medical Board for re-examination of the petitioner. 10. For the forgoing discussions. the rvrit petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. " 4. I-earned counsel for the appellant has questioned the findings of the learned writ court as erroneous. It is submitted that if the re-medical examination was directed in the case o['the appellant, he would be found to have adequate chest expansion measurement of 5 cms or above on which ground he was held ineligible 5. On behalf of respondent No. l Commission, and respondent - No. 4, reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court rendered recently in thc case of Bumbathula Sravan Kumar v.
Telangana Public Service Commission (W. A. No. l8 of 2025 and batch, dated 31. 12. 2025). It is subrnitted that this court has, on the very same issue, set aside the orders of thc learned rvrit court directing the respondents to undertake the exercise of re-rnedical examination in respect of the i i i petitioners therein fbr appointment to the same post of AMVI pursuant I I I I to the Notification No. 3l,'2022, datcd 31. 12. 2022. It is submitted that I I l the reasons recorded by this Court in the said case r,vould squarely apply I I to the case of the present appellant as well, as after a lapse of several I I li years, the request f,or re-rnedical examination to ascertain the chest i expansion measurement would not be reasonable or proper. Therefore, I it is prayed that the instant appeal may be dismissed as without merit. l, lt ! l il I 6.
We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for \ ; t the parties and taken notc of the rnaterials placed from record, including t I i rl the decision rendered by this court in the case of Bumbathula Sravan i 1i Kumar (supra). ii il ti t' i ,l 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, rve do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned writ court in refusing to direct re-medical examination by referring the appellant to a different hospital/Medical Board in respect of the selection process for AMVI, lor thc sarne rcasons as are rccorded in the dccision o1' this Court in Bumbathula Sravan Kumar (supra) 8. l-herefbre, u,e do not hnd any merit in the instant appeal and the same is accordingly disrnissed. fhere shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, i{'an\', shall stand closed. Sd/. MOHD. ISMATL DEPUTY REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYII 6 SECTION OFFICER To, 1. One CC to SRl. J.
S_UDHEER, Advocate [OpUCl i'*il b;;;J' the state or reransana at l : Iyf"i&:l"roo,irfoH5iiRviEs 3. One cc to SRt. F. .. F^. I^SEKHAR (qc Tcpsc) roR topucl n hnJAsL-rlXflnna;nj,. i. ii. jr6F,uer --r ,l f ? ,lS BS t"":* I B M/PMK HIGH COURT - DATED:2110112026 JUDGMENT WA. No. 309 of 2024 i I r'FB 7026 $ t * ft DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ! b\
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.