Telangana High Court
Palle Ramdarshan vs The State Of Telangana on 23 September, 2020
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.23370 OF 2019
ORDER:
Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for respondents.
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :-
"...............Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 2nd Respondent is NOT considered and selected the Petitioner under the BC-B Reservation for the postcode nos. 23 Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (SAR CPL) (Men), postcode nos.24 - Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) (Men) and postcode nos.25-Constable in Telangana Special Protection Force Department per the vide Notification No RC.No.88/Rect /Admin-1/2018 Dated:31-5-2018- 1. though the petitioner was completed certificate verification on 18.06.2019 at Office of the Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar and 2. in spite of secured more meritorious 108.25 (107/2+54.75 =108.25 marks) than mentioned cutoff marks for postcode no.23- 106.25, for postcode no.24 -100.25 and for postcode no.25 104.50 and which result in grave injustice as the petitioner is going to lose the opportunity of getting selected for post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (SAR CPL) (Men) Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) (Men) and Constable in Telangana Special Protection Force Department after successful completion of all the phases of the recruitment such as Preliminary Written Test (PWT), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Final Written Examination (FEW) and eligible under BC-B reservation quota AND Not publishing the complete list of Provisionally Selected Candidates with details like 'Candidates community', 'Selected Category', 'Gender', 'Normalized marks' and 'Special Category' as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently Direct the 2nd Respondent to select the petitioner either in post of 2 Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (SAR CPL) (Men) OR Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) (Men) OR Constable in Telangana Special Protection Force Department under BC-B category as the petitioner secured more marks than the mentioned cutoff marks AND publish the complete list of Provisionally Selected Candidates with details like 'Candidates community', 'Selected Category', 'Gender', 'Normalized marks' and 'Special Category' in the interest of justice and to pass .............."
It has been contended by the petitioner that he has responded to the notification issued by the respondents on 31.05.2018 as he is fully eligible and qualified to the posts specified in the said notification. Accordingly, he applied for the post of Police Constable and results were declared on 27.05.2019. Thereafter, respondents issued a press note on 09.06.2019 asking the qualified candidates to attend for certificate verification. As the petitioner got qualified he appeared for certificate verification on 18.06.2019. The grievance of the petitioner is that he appeared for certificate verification at Counter Nos.1 and 2 but had not appeared at Counter No.3 and got his certificates verified and obtained signatures by the authorities, as a result which, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post applied by the petitioner. Though petitioner immediately made representation on 27.09.2019 requesting the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Police Constable, the respondents have not considered his case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the certificates produced by the petitioner were genuine and the same 3 were verified by the authorities. But, however, the case of the petitioner was not considered only on the ground that he has not appeared at Counter No.3 for certificate verification and obtained signatures of the authorities. Therefore, he contends that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Police Constable in accordance with the Rules.
Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that qualified candidates had to appear before three counters and get their certificates verified and at the last Counter i.e., at Counter No.3 they have to get their certificates verified and have to obtain the signature of the authority. But in the instant case, petitioner had appeared before Counter Nos.1 and 2 but has not appeared before Counter No.3 and got his certificates verified and obtained the signature of the competent authority. Therefore, the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment to the post he has applied for.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, is of the considered view that petitioner had appeared before the authorities on 18.06.2019 for certificate verification. He appeared before Counter Nos.1 and 2, but did not appear before Counter No.3 for certificate verification and affixing signatures by the authorities. The non-appearance of the petitioner before Counter No.3 cannot be faulted with the petitioner and it is the responsibility of the respondents to ensure that they have verified the certificates of all the qualified candidates and affixed their 4 signatures. Merely, petitioner had not appeared before the authorities for verification of the certificates and had not obtained signatures of the authorities at Counter No.3 would not non-suit him for considering him for further selection process. Therefore, ends of justice would be met if a direction be given to the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for examining the certificates afresh and if they are found to be in order, then the case of the petitioner would be considered for further selection process for appointment to the post to which he is eligible in accordance with the Rules.
With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J Date: 23-09-2020 dv 5