Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs B. Krishna Chetana on 5 February, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Writ Appeal No.73 of 2024
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the order, dated 27.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.37299 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants had contended that the respondents have responded to the notification, dated 25.04.2022 for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Arm Reserved) and Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police (Arm Reserved). The respondents are all women candidates and they have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.37299 of 2022 contending that the appellants should not follow the ::2:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 normalisation formula in the notification, dated 25.04.2022. The respondents have filed the subject writ petition even before commencement of the Physical Efficiency Test and contended that as per Physical Efficiency Test, there is only one event i.e., 800 meters run in respect of female candidates and 1600 meters run in respect of male candidates. The respondents were contending that when there is only one event, normalisation could not be followed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants further contended that the respondents have not challenged the notification, dated 25.04.2022 and in the notification, it was made very clear that the normalisation procedure would be followed in respect of the post Code No.12. Learned counsel further contended that the normalisation procedure is adopted to balance the recruitment process between male and female candidates and it is not dependant on one event. In order to normalize the physical events, ::3:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 normalisation formula was prescribed in the notification itself and the respondents without explaining as to how there would be prejudice by applying normalisation procedure, were contending that normalisation process could not be followed while concluding the recruitment process and the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition in favour of the respondents vide order, dated 27.12.2023 by directing the appellants not to follow normalisation process, when there is only one physical event in the selection process, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants. It is further contended that the issue whether normalisation process has to be followed or not was considered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15675 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019, wherein the learned Single Judge upheld the normalisation process prescribed in the notification and the same was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.809 of 2019, dated 01.06.2021. Therefore, when the issue was ::4:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 squarely covered by the judgment in W.A.No.809 of 2019, dated 01.06.2021, the learned Single Judge could not have allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants that the normalisation procedure could not be followed while concluding the selection process. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ appeal by setting aside the order, dated 27.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.37299 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ appeal.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the women candidates are put to inconvenience by applying normalisation process and marks secured by the women candidates are deducted in the final list by applying the normalisation principle and on the ground of discrimination, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the learned Single Judge has ::5:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 taken into account the fact that in the present case, there is only one event and if W.P.No.15675 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019 is concerned, there were five (5) events and the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the order, dated 14.10.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge and granted relief in favour of the respondents. It is further submitted that the women candidates are being put to a position of disadvantage by applying normalisation principle. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition by directing the appellants not to apply normalisation procedure as set out in the notification. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that the respondents could not demonstrate before the learned Single Judge as to how they are being affected by applying normalisation process. A perusal of the ::6:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 notification, dated 25.04.2022 discloses that for the post Code No.12, the elaborate procedure of normalisation is set out and the respondents have not even challenged the notification, dated 25.04.2022 nor challenged the prescription of normalisation process. The notification also discloses that the procedure of normalisation is to be adopted in order to maintain normalcy between male and female candidates and it is not dependant on the events. The normalisation formula has been set out in the notification as follows:-
"For Post Code No.12 i.e., SCT RSI (AR), the marks secured by men and women in the run event shall be normalized using the following formula or any other procedure/formula to be adopted by the TSLPRB as approved by the Government, to ensure fairness. the normalized marks in 1600 meters/800 meters run event shall be taken while drawing the final merit list.
Normalized Mark = (SD + Avg)T + [Raw Mark - (SD + Avg)S ] X [AvgTT - (SD + Avg)T] [AvgST - (SD + Avg)S] Where-
SD = Standard Deviation
Avg = Mean or Average
Subscript T = of Total or all the Qualified
Candidates
Subscript S = of All the Qualified Candidates pertaining
to the Gender Group of the Candidate. Subscript TT = of the Top 0.1% or Top 10 (whichever is higher) Candidates among all the Qualified Candidates.
::7:: AKS,J & RRN,J
wa_73_2024
Subscript ST = of the Top 0.1% or Top 10 (whichever is
higher) Candidates among all the Qualified Candidates pertaining to the Gender Group of the Candidate.
The normalized marks will be rounded up to the third decimal place and their value will be considered as it is."
The learned Single Judge gave a finding that the notification had mentioned the normalisation procedure and formula only for the run event. The respondents have not challenged the said notification, but are only challenging the normalisation procedure on the ground that there is only one event. Therefore, the respondents could not demonstrate before the learned Single Judge as to how they are affected by the normalisation procedure.
7. Today, when a specific question was asked to the learned counsel for the respondents as to how they are affected by applying normalisation procedure, the learned counsel could not clarify as to how they are being affected. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had contended that it is for the ::8:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 appellants to clarify and demonstrate as to how normalisation procedure has been adopted and how many marks were deducted for the respondents. Therefore, when there is a procedure for normalisation in the notification, the question of interfering with the notification would not arise. Moreover, the issue was already covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.15675 of 2019, dated 14.10.2019 and the same was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.809 of 2019, dated 01.06.2021, wherein, the normalisation procedure was upheld by this Court. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in allowing the writ petition and therefore, directing the appellants not to follow the normalisation process is contrary to law and the said order is liable to be set aside.
8. With the above observations, the order, dated 27.12.2023 passed in W.P.No.37299 of 2022 is set ::9:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 aside and the present Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J _____________________________________ __ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 05.02.2024 prat ::10:: AKS,J & RRN,J wa_73_2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO Writ Appeal No.73 of 2024 Date: 05.02.2024 prat