Telangana High Court
S. Balamani vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 29 September, 2020
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT PETITION No.25248 of 2019
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"..to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 2nd respondent, in not considering and selecting the petitioner by giving age relaxation as she got separated from her husband and not remarried and living as a single parent and claiming AASARA pension under 'Single Woman' scheme for the post code No.21 - Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) (Men & Women) & post code No.22 - Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (AR) (Men & Women) in Police Department as per Notification Nos.RC.No.88/Rect./Admin-1/2018 Dated 31.05.2018 & Rc.No.88A/Rect./Admn-1/2018 dated 06.06.2018 in spite of securing more than cut-off marks of BC-A (Women) for PC (Civil) & PC (AR) in Ranga Reddy district and which result in grave injustice as the petitioner has lost the opportunity of getting selected for the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) (Men & Women) & Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (AR) (Men & Women) in Police 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 age relaxation under separated from her husband as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of
2 AKS,J W.P.No.25248 of 2019 India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner for the postcode no.21 - Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (Civil) (Men & Women) & postcode no.22 -
Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (AR) (Men & Women) in Police Department as petitioner secured more marks than the mentioned cutoff marks by considering her age relaxation as she separated from her husband, in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case." Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, counsel for the petitioner, and the Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
It has been contended by the petitioner that she has responded to recruitment notification dated 31.05.2018 for the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) & SCT Police Constable (AR) and has faired decently well in the selections. The petitioner is claiming to be judicially separated from her husband and receiving AASARA pension from the State Government for being a single woman. The petitioner stated that she has secured 76 marks in respect of the selections for the post of SCT Police Constable (Civil) and 104 marks for the post of SCT Police Constable (AR) and the cut off marks for both categories, i.e., SCT Police Constable (Civil) and SCT Police Constable (AR), were 71 and 44.09 respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of her securing more marks than cut-off marks, the respondents are not considering her case for appointment to the post of SCT Police Constable by extending the benefit of age relaxation treating her as single woman.
3 AKS,J W.P.No.25248 of 2019 Therefore, counsel for the petitioner had contended that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as single woman and consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SCT Police Constable in pursuance of the notification dated 31.05.2018.
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had contended that in the impugned notification itself, it is made clear that a candidate claiming age relaxation by virtue of being either Divorcee or a woman judicially separated from her husband, should produce a certified copy of the judgment/decree of the appropriate court to prove the fact of divorce or the judicial separation, as the case may be, along with an affidavit that she has not re-married since. But in the instant case, no such judgment/decree of the appropriate court was produced by the petitioner and, hence, the case of the petitioner could not be considered for appointment to the post of SCT Police Constable by giving age relaxation treating the petitioner as single woman, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
This Court, having considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that admittedly the petitioner has not produced any judgment/decree of the appropriate Court to demonstrate before the respondents or before this Court that she is a single woman, and only on the basis of mere fact that the petitioner is receiving AASARA pension, she cannot be treated as a single woman. Thus, the respondents have rightly not considered the case of the petitioner as a single woman and 4 AKS,J W.P.No.25248 of 2019 accordingly the case of the petitioner was not considered for appointment to the post of SCT Police Constable. Hence, there are no merits in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 29-09-2020 vv