Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
W.P.No.41724 Of 2016 vs Raju Mudigiri And Others on 5 January, 2017
Author: G. Shyam Prasad
Bench: G. Shyam Prasad
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE G. SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition Nos.41724 of 2016 and batch
05-01-2017
W.P.No.41724 of 2016
Between:
Raju Mudigiri and others..Petitioners
The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderaba
Counsel for petitioner: Sri J. Sudheer, counsel for the petitioners
Counsel for respondent: Sri S. Sharath Kumar, Special G.P.
<Gist:
>Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1) 1992 (4) SCC 477
2) 1997 (7) SCC 592
3) 1999 (4) SCC 727
4) 2006 (8) SCC 381
5) 2006 (8) SCC 399
6) 2011 (6) SCC 508
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN
AND
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE G.SHYAM PRASAD
Writ Petition Nos.41724, 41796, 44564, 44276 of 2016 &
WPMP.No.55493 of 2016 in W.P.No.41724 of 2016 & 55822 of 2016
in W.P.No.41796 of 2016
Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
The petitioners in all these writ petitions have been working on
contract basis either as Agriculture Officers or as Agriculture
Extension Officers or as Horticulture Officers. They have come up
with the present writ petitions either challenging a Government Order
in G.O.Ms.No.108 Finance (HRM-I) Department dated 27-07-2015
and/or challenging certain notifications viz., Notification No.11/2015
dated 05-09-2015 or Notification No.19/2015 dated 30-12-2015 or
Notification No.4/2016 dated 30-04-2016, apart from seeking various
other consequential or alternative reliefs.
2. Heard Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Sharat Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader (Telangana)
and Mr. M. Prahastha, learned counsel for the parties who seek to
implead themselves as party respondents.
3. It appears that in the combined State of Andhra Pradesh, the
procedure of selection for direct recruitment to the post of Agriculture
Officers as stipulated in G.O.Rt.No.131, dated 10-02-2015 was as
follows:
Marks:
The formula in marking procedure shall be 75:10:15, merit, seniority,
and experience respectively.
O.G.P.A 75 marks (OGPA 2.00 will be awarded with 55
marks and one mark for every 0.1
increase over 2.00 Overall Grade
Point Average
Seniority 10 marks@ One mark per year from the year of
passing (for completed year)
Experience 15 marks @ 4 marks per year for satisfactory
Service rendered as A.O./ Agricultural
Consultant (ANTWA). Multi Purpose
Extension Officer (M.P.E.O) on
contract basis in the Dept. of
Agriculture subject to a maximum of
15 marks. The service certificate
should be issued by the J.D.A. of the
concerned district. The service
rendered on contract basis in the
Agriculture Department in different
spells shall be COMPUTED for
arriving total period of experience in
years and thereafter any part of the
year shall be treated as nil.
Disincentive (i) Deduction of one mark for every
semester/trimester taken to complete
the course. Deduction of three marks
for graduates who pass from colleges
having 3 years course.
(ii) Deduction of one mark for all cases
wherein the candidates have appeared
for re-exams under regulation 9.1 (b)
of Regulations governing under
graduate courses (APAU) ANGRAU.
The above procedure stipulated in G.O.Rt.No.131, Agriculture &
Cooperation (AGRI.IV) Department dated 10-02-2015 was slightly
modified under G.O.Rt.No.362, dated 23-04-2005 as follows:
In the said G.O., under the heading Marks for the entries
against sub-heading Experience the following shall be
substituted, namely:-
15 marks @ 1 mark per every completed period of 3 months
experience of satisfactory service rendered as A.O./Agricultural
Consultant (ANTWA), Multy Purpose Extension Officer (M.P.E.O.)
on contract basis in the Dept. of Agriculture, subject to a maximum
of 15 marks. The service certificate should be issued by the J.D.A.
of the concerned district. The service rendered on contract basis in
the Agriculture Department in different spells shall be COMPUTED
for arriving total period of experience in three months completed
periods and thereafter any part of the three months i.e. less than
three months shall be treated as nil.
4. Subsequently by G.O.Ms.No.173 Agriculture and Cooperation
(FP.I) Department, dated 07-07-2009, a revised procedure for
selection was issued to the following effect:
1.
Over all Grade Point average
100 marks
10 Scale of Overall Grade Point
Average is denoted directly and
the corresponding percentage of
marks be directly considered for
ranking rather than changing with
conversion formula as reflected in
the certificate.
2.
Seniority
10marks
@ one mark per year from the
year of passing (for completed
year)
3.
Experience
15 marks
@ 4 marks per year for
satisfactory service rendered as
Agricultural Officer/ Agricultural
Consultant (Andhra Pradesh &
Netherlands Training of Women in
Agriculture ANTWA), Multi
Purpose Extension Officer
(MPEO) on contract basis in the
Department of Agriculture, subject
to a maximum of 15 marks. The
service certificate should be
issued by the Joint Director of
Agriculture of the concerned
District. The service rendered on
contract basis in the Agriculture
Department in different spells
shall be COMPUTED for arriving
at the total period of experience in
years and thereafter any part of
the year shall be treated as nil.
4.
(i) Candidates with 4 years B.Sc.
(Ag.) are only considered.
(ii) No negative marking for the
students who have obtained
degree by repeating the
examination.
The above aforesaid procedure was again modified under
G.O.Rt.No.1042, dated 24-08-2009 to the following effect:
In the said Government Order, in para (3) for the heading Qualification
and the entries made thereunder, the following shall be substituted namely,-
Qualification
Recruitment to the posts of Agricultural Extension Officers Grade.II shall
be considered with the qualification of a Degree in B.Sc(Ag.), B.Sc., Dry Land
Agriculture (Vocational) and Diploma holders of Agriculture Polytechnic/Seed
Technology/Plant Protection/Organic Farming, as per merit basis in the following
manner;
Marks awarded:
B.Sc.(Ag)
4/3 years
100 Marks
(i) 10 Scale of Overall Grade Point Average is
denoted directly and the corresponding
percentage of marks be directly considered for
ranking rather than changing the conversion
formula as reflected in the certificate.
(ii) Candidates with 4/3 years B.Sc(Ag) are
considered.
(iii) No negative marking for the students who
have obtained degree by repeating the
examination.
B.Sc(Dry Land
Agriculture
(Vocation)
100 Marks
The marks secured for 100 marks in the B.Sc.
Dry Land Agriculture (Vocational) shall be
calculated on percentage basis.
Diploma in
Agriculture
Polytechnic,
Seed
Technology/
Plant
Protection/
Organic Farming
100 Marks
The marks secured for 100 marks in the
Diploma in Agriculture Polytechnic/Seed
Technology/Plant Protection/Organic
Farming, shall be calculated on percentage
basis.
Seniority
10 Marks
@ one mark per year from the year of passing
(for completed year) (in respect of all the
respective disciplines)
Experience
15 Marks
B.Sc(Ag)
candidates
@ 1 mark per every completed period of
1 month of satisfactory service rendered as
Agricultural Officer/ Agricultural Consultant
in Andhra Pradesh Training for Women in
Agriculture & Allied Sectors (ANTWA),
National Food Security Mission (NFSM),
Rastriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY), Multi
Purpose Extension Officer (MPEO) on contract
basis in the Department of Agriculture and
service rendered as Seed Officer in Andhra
Pradesh State Seeds Development Corporation
Limited and Seed Certification Officer in
Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification
Agency on contract basis subject to a
maximum of 15 marks. The service certificate
should be issued by the Joint Director of
Agriculture of the concerned district and
Director, Andhra Pradesh State Seed
Certification Agency and Managing Director,
Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development
Corporation Limited.
The service rendered on contract basis in the
Agriculture Department, Andhra Pradesh
State Seeds Development Corporation Limited
and Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification
Agency in different spells shall be computed
for arriving total period of experience in and
thereafter any part of the 1 month i.e., less
than 1 month shall be treated as nil.
Experience
15 Marks
B.Sc (Dry
Land Agril.)
(Vocational)
and Diploma
in
Agriculture
Polytechnic/
Seed
Technology/
Plant
Protection/
Organic
Farming
@ 1 mark per one month of experience,
completed period of 1 month of satisfactory
service rendered as Multi Purpose Extension
Officer (MPEO) on contract basis in the
Department of Agriculture subject to a
maximum of
15 marks. The service certificate should be
issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture of
the concerned district.
The service rendered on contract basis in the
Agriculture Department in different spells
shall be computed for arriving total period of
experience in and thereafter any part of the 1
month i.e., less than
1 month shall be treated as nil.
Selection
Committee
AEOs
Posts
1. District Collector .. Chairman
2. District Joint Director
of Agriculture .. Convener
3. Deputy Director of
Agriculture (FTC) .. Member
4. Professor/Assistant
Professor of Acharya
N.G. Ranga Agricultural
University of Respective
Region .. Member
5. After the bifurcation of the State under the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014 with effect from 02-06-2014, the
Government of Telangana issued a Government Order in
G.O.Ms.No.108 Finance (HRM-I) Department, dated 27-07-2015,
according permission to fill up about 15,522 vacancies in various
categories of posts through direct recruitment, by relevant recruiting
agencies. Under the said Government Order, these 15,522 vacancies
comprised of 3,783 vacancies in various posts in the Departments of
Agriculture, Irrigation, Municipal Administration, Revenue etc., and
these posts were directed to be filled up through the Telangana State
Public Service Commission. About 9,058 posts in the Police
Department were directed to be filled up through State Level Police
Recruitment Board and the remaining 2,681 posts in the Department of
Energy were directed to be filled up through Departmental Selection
Committee.
6. Out of 3783 posts in various Departments directed to be
filled up through the Telangana State Public Service Commission, 120
posts were in the category of Agriculture Officer, 311 posts were in
the category of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II and 75 posts
were in the category of Horticulture Officers.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid Government Order, the Andhra
Pradesh Public Service Commission issued 3 notifications, one under
Notification No.11/2015, dated 05-09-2015 for filling up of 120 posts of
Agriculture Officer, the second bearing Notification No.19/2015 dated
30-12-2015 for filling up 311 posts of Agriculture Extension Officer
Grade-II and the third in Notification No.4/2016 dated 30-04-2016 for
filling up of 1000 posts of Agriculture Extension Officer Grade-II.
8. Similarly, a notification for recruitment to the posts of
Horticulture Officers was also issued.
9. Immediately thereafter, a group of about 220 candidates
working on contract basis either as Agriculture Officer or as
Agriculture Extension Officer or as Horticulture Officer, filed 2
applications in O.A.Nos.5283 and 5284 of 2015 on the file of Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The main relief sought by the
applicants in O.A.Nos.5283 and 5284 of 2015 was to set aside
G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 27-07-2015 and to direct the State of
Telangana/Telangana State Public Service Commission only to follow
the same procedure of selection that was in force prior to the
reorganisation, in the teeth of Section 101 of the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Act, 2014. Curiously the petitioners also made an
alternative prayer to direct the Telangana State Public Service
Commission to conduct written test without the paper on General
Knowledge and to proceed with the selection only by assessing the
merits of the candidates on the concerned subjects with sufficient
marks for seniority and weightage.
10. The Original Applicants before the Tribunal sought interim
orders to direct the Government not to notify the vacancies in the post
of Agriculture Officer/Agriculture Extension Officers Grade-II and
Horticulture Officers. But the Tribunal refused to grant an interim
direction. However, the Tribunal made it clear by its order dated 10-
09-2015 that any appointment made in pursuance of the impugned
notifications will be subject to the outcome of the Original
Applications.
11. Challenging the refusal of the Tribunal to stall the selection,
the Original Applicants filed 2 writ petitions in W.P.Nos.30376 and
30505 of 2015. On 22-09-2015 this Court, while entertaining the writ
petitions, directed the Public Service Commission to go ahead with the
conduct of the written examination but not to finalise the process of
selection.
12. Following the aforesaid interim order granted by this Court,
the Tribunal also passed a similar interim order on 01-03-2016 in
M.A.No.147 of 2016 in O.A.No.5283 of 2015.
13. Thereafter, the Public Service Commission issued the last
of the notifications bearing No.4/2016, dated 30-04-2016 for filling up
of 1000 posts of Agriculture Extension Officers Grade-II. Therefore,
another group of individuals filed a fresh application in O.A.No.1859 of
2016 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. In the
said Original Application, the Tribunal refused to pass any interim
orders forcing the Original Applicants to file a writ petition in
W.P.No.25011 of 2016. This writ petition was taken up by a Division
Bench of this Court along with W.P.Nos.30376 and 30505 of 2015 and
disposed of by an order dated 11-08-2016, to the effect that the
examination could go on but the final process of selection should be
kept on hold.
14. But subsequently, by a notification issued by the Central
Government, the jurisdiction of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative
Tribunal over the State of Telangana was withdrawn. Therefore, the
Government filed an application for review in Rev.WPMP.No.45226 of
2016 seeking a review of the order dated 11-08-2016, on the ground
that the Tribunal cannot deal with the issue any more and that
therefore, the process of selection that was put on hold, will remain
stagnant forever if the interim orders granted earlier continued to
remain in force. Accepting the said contention, this Court passed an
order dated 14-11-2016 giving liberty to the Original Applicants before
the Tribunal to move the appropriate forum for the larger reliefs and
continuing the earlier interim orders for a period of 4 weeks.
15. With the liberty so granted by this Court in the order
passed in the review application, the petitioners have come up with the
above writ petitions. Out of 4 writ petitions on hand, 3 relate to direct
recruitment to the posts of Agriculture Officer and Agriculture
Extension Officer Grade-II. One writ petition relates to direct
recruitment to the post of Horticulture Officer.
16. Before we proceed further, it must be recorded that all the
petitioners herein have appeared in the written examination conducted
by the Public Service Commission. But the Public Service
Commission and the Government have not been able to proceed with
the next stage of selection for appointment to all these three
categories of posts. What are now put on hold by the interim orders of
this Court are appointment to 120 posts of Agriculture Officers, 1311
posts of Agriculture Extension Officers Grade-II and about 75 posts of
Horticulture Officer.
17. Persons from the open market, who have participated in the
process of selection and who are aggrieved by the entire process of
selection being put on hold, have come up with the applications for
impleadment. Therefore, they were also heard.
18. As we have pointed out earlier, the primary challenge of the
writ petitioners is to G.O.Ms.No.108, dated 27-07-2015 by which the
Government of Telangana had entrusted the task of selection to the
Telangana State Public Service Commission. According to the
petitioners, the Government is obliged to follow the practice that was
prevailing for more than 2 decades, by confining the procedure of
selection only to the assessment of the merit as reflected in the
qualified examination (Degree or Diploma in Agriculture), seniority of
waiting as an unemployed Graduate/Diploma holder and experience
that they have gained by working as contract employees.
19. The alternative contention of the petitioners is that even if
there was sufficient justification for the Government to entrust the task
of direct recruitment to the Telangana State Public Service
Commission, the procedure of selection could not have been altered,
especially when the State of Telangana has not made any law
adapting a different procedure under Section 101 of the Andhra
Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
20. Another alternative argument of the petitioners is that in the
event of this Court not accepting their contention for continuing the old
process of selection, the petitioners should at least be given
weightage for the experience that they have gained as contract
employees. The petitioners also pitch their claim on the ground of
legitimate expectation.
21. We have carefully considered the above submissions.
22. Let us first take up the contentions based upon legitimate
expectation. According to Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the
petitioners, the procedure of selection that was in vogue for nearly 2
decades, gave rise to a legitimate expectation in the minds of the
contract employees like the petitioners herein that they would have a
fair chance of getting appointed as against regular vacancies. But by
altering the procedure of selection and entrusting the task to the
Public Service Commission for conducting a written test, the
respondents have struck at the root of this legitimate expectation.
23. In support of his contention relating to legitimate
expectation, the learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the
following decisions:
1) Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society and others v. Union of
India and others
2) M.P. Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P. and others ;
3) Punjab Communications Ltd., v. Union of India and others
4) Ram Pravesh Singh and others v. State of Bihar and others
5) Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations and others v.
Union of India and others
6) Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and others
24. At the outset we wish to point out that the doctrine of
legitimate expectation presupposes the existence of some semblance
of a right. As rightly contended by the learned Government Pleader, a
person appointed on contract basis, does not acquire any right. This
is not only by virtue of the terms and conditions subject to which the
petitioners were engaged, but also by virtue of Rule 9 of the General
Rules for Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services.
25. The only right that a person has, be it a temporary
employee appointed under Rule 10 (a) (i) or a contract employee
appointed under Rule 9 or an outsider, is to be considered for
appointment to a Civil post or a post in Civil Services of the State. The
only guarantee given by the Constitution is a right to be considered
along with others. If all persons, who aspire to get into Government
service, are subjected to a uniform procedure of selection, no
candidate can complain that his legitimate expectation was defeated
by prescribing a uniform method of short listing candidates for
selection based purely upon merit. The doctrine of legitimate
expectation has no relevance in the matter of prescription of a
procedure for selection.
26. Coming to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, it is seen that in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing
Society and others v. Union of India the Court was concerned with a
procedure for allotment of land by the Delhi Development Authority.
M.P. Oil Extraction and another v. State of M.P. related to the grant of
largesse, so far as distribution of sal seeds is concerned. Punjab
Communications Ltd., v. Union of India related to the award of tender
for providing Digital Wireless Telecom Facility. Ram Pravesh Singh
and others v. State of Bihar arose out of a dispute relating to the claim
for absorption of the employees of a society to which a licence was
granted by the Electricity Board for supply of electricity to certain
areas. The decision in Confederation of Ex-Servicemen Associations
and others v. Union of India arose out of a claim of Ex-servicemen to
full and free Medicare. Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida is a
decision that arose out of allotment of industrial and residential plots.
27. Thus all the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners related to the award of contracts or allotment of land
or the grant of a public largesse.
28. In the matter of public employment, it is common
knowledge that about 30 to 40 years ago the number of persons who
were available in the open market for appointment to any post was
less. Therefore, the Rules in existence in those days prescribed only
a limited process of screening. But as more and more people became
qualified, the competition increased. Hence, it became necessary for
the Government to adapt different procedures of selection, so that the
best talent is selected. No Court has ever held that the prescription of
a written test for selection of candidates for direct recruitment to
Government service, offends the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
As pointed out by the Supreme Court even in Ram Pravesh Singh, the
efficacy of this doctrine, as a ground for relief, is rather weak. The
slot available for this doctrine is just above fairness in action, but far
below promissory estoppel. Therefore, the contention based upon
legitimate expectation is liable to be rejected outright.
29. The next contention is based upon Section 101 of the A.P.
Reorganisation Act, 2014. It reads as follows:
Power to adapt laws:- For the purpose of facilitating the
application in relation to the State of Andhra Pradesh or the
State of Telangana of any law made before the appointed day,
the appropriate Government may, before the expiration of two
years from that day, by order, make such adaptations and
modifications of the law, whether by way of repeal or
amendment, as may be necessary or expedient, and thereupon
every such law shall have effect subject to the adaptations and
modifications so made until altered, repealed or amended by a
competent Legislature or other competent authority.
30. A careful perusal of Section 101 shows that it is only an
enabling provision. Since a new State was born by virtue of
reorganisation, a power was conferred by Section 101 upon the
appropriate Government to make such adaptations and modifications
of the law as may be necessary. This power cannot be construed to
mean that a practice prevailing before bifurcation should continue.
31. Admittedly, the posts of Agriculture Officer, Agriculture
Extension Officer and Horticulture Officer are governed by a set of
statutory Rules issued in exercise of the power conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. These special Rules
known as Special Rules for Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Subordinate
Service merely prescribe the qualifications for appointment. They do
not prescribe the procedure for selection. Therefore, the procedure of
selection that the combined State of Andhra Pradesh was following
under G.O.Rt.No.131 dated 10-02-2005, G.O.Rt.No.362 dated 23-04-
2005, G.O.Rt.No.173 dated
07-07-2009 and G.O.Rt.No.1042, dated 24-08-2009, cannot be
elevated to the status of a law, merely on the basis of the definition of
the expression law contained in Section 2 (f) of the A.P.
Reorganisation Act, 2014. As a matter of fact a Public Service
Commission is constituted in terms of Article 315 of the Constitution of
India. The functions of the Public Service Commission are enlisted in
Article 320 of the Constitution of India. Article 320 (1) of the
Constitution mandates that the Public Service Commissions should
conduct examinations for appointments to the Services of the State.
Article 320 (1) reads as follows:
It shall be the duty of the Union and the State Public Service
Commissions to conduct examinations for appointments to the
services of the Union and the services of the State respectively.
32. Assuming that Section 101 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act,
2014 has any application on account of the definition of the expression
law contained in Section 2 (f), even then G.O.Ms.No.108 by which
the task of selection was entrusted to the Public Service Commission
should be understood and construed to be the adaptation of a law with
a modification of the procedure for selection. Once G.O.Ms.No.108 is
construed as a modification of the existing law (assuming that it is
law) under Section 101 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014, then the
provisions of Article 320 (1) of the Constitution would automatically
come into play. Therefore, there is no way the petitioners can escape
the obligation to participate in the procedure of selection prescribed by
the Service Commission. Therefore, the contention based upon
Section 101 of the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 is also liable to be
rejected.
33. That leaves us with only one last contention, which
revolves around the experience that the petitioners have gained by
working as contract employees. Mr. J. Sudheer, learned counsel for
the petitioners pleaded that at least some weightage should be given
to the petitioners for the services that they have rendered as contract
employees. But this request is opposed by the learned Government
Pleader as well as the learned counsel for impleading petitioners on
the basis of a decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and others in Civil
Writ Petition No.13045 of 2009 dated 06-04-2010.
34. We do not think that the decision of the Division Bench of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court could be taken as a guiding light to
deal with the contention of the petitioners. The reason is that what
was under challenge before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
Ashok Kumars case was the grant of relaxation in age, exemption
from passing School Teachers Eligibility Test (STET) and weightage
towards experience for the service rendered by Guest faculty
lecturers. The grant of those series of exemptions struck at the very
root of equality guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and
hence the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court cannot form
the basis for dealing with the present contention.
35. Whenever persons appointed on temporary basis came up
with claims for regularisation, the Courts have always directed those
temporary employees to participate in a regular process of selection,
after granting relaxation in the upper age limit to the extent of the
services rendered by them. In so far as the petitioners herein are
concerned this contingency has not arisen since all of them were
allowed to write the examination. Therefore, if at all any concession
can be granted to them, it could only be to take the services rendered
by them in the past as a preferential criteria, if two persons are found
to be of equal merit in the written examination conducted by the Public
Service Commission. In other words, if a candidate who participated
in the process of selection from the open market and a candidate who
has worked as contract employee have secured equal marks in the
written examination and both of them come within the zone of
consideration, a preferential treatment may be given to the person who
had already rendered service as a contract employee. This is only the
concession that can be granted to the petitioners. Other than that,
their challenges to G.O.Ms.No.108 and to the procedure of selection,
are devoid of merit and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
36. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of with a
limited direction. As we have observed in the preceding paragraph, the
Government may consider according a preferential treatment to the
contract employees, if any of the contract employee has secured the
same mark as that of an outsider, who has come within the zone of
consideration in the same category to which he belongs such as B.C.,
S.C. and S.T. etc. All other claims and reliefs sought are rejected.
There shall be no order as to costs. WPMP.No.55493 in
W.P.No.41724 of 2016 and WPMP.No.55822 in W.P.No.41796 of 2016
are dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ
petition shall stand closed. No costs.
________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J
___________________ G.SHYAM PRASAD, J Date: 05-01-2017