Telangana High Court
Bommena Vanaja vs The State Of Telangana on 12 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.35779 of 2024
ORDER:
This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue a writ, order, or direction, more in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 1st Respondent - Principal Secretary, Health, Medical & Family Welfare Department in issuing the G.O.Ms. No.133 HM&FW(B) Department, dated: 19.08.2023 by which altered the selection criteria by increasing the points for service in state government hospitals/institutions/programmes for the post of Multi Purpose Health Assistant (Female) from 20 to 30 and resulting in grave injustice to the petitioner herein is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, contemptuous as the maximum limit of 20 points was established by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in WP No.40157 of 2017 & Batch dated 18.09.2020, and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Art 14, 16, 19 (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently pleased to set aside the G.O.Ms. No. 133 HM&FW (B) Department, dated 19.08.2023 and direct the 2nd respondent to conduct the written examination for 80 marks and restricting the points awarded for service in state government hospitals/institutions/programmes to 20 in accordance with G.O.Ms. No. 59 HM&FW (B) Department, dated 07.06.2022 and the Full Bench Judgment in WP No.40157 of 2017 & Batch dated 18.09.2020 and pass..."
2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.2 had issued a recruitment notification vide Notification No.2/2023 dated 26.07.2023, inviting applications for filling up (1,520) vacancies in the post of Multi-Purpose Health Assistant 2 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 (MPHA) (Female) under the Commissionerate of Health, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Government of Telangana, duly following the selection procedure mentioned in G.O.Ms.Nos.59, 60 and 63 dated 07.06.2022 and 14.06.2022. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner, being fully qualified and eligible, applied for the said post vide App.Ref.No.:M/2023/17531/191753197/ 26633. While so, apart from illegally and arbitrarily increasing the number of vacancies from (1,560) to (1,666), respondent No.1 has also altered the selection procedure and criteria vide G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 19.08.2023, pursuant to which, a corrigendum dated 19.08.2023 to Notification No.2/2023 was also issued by respondent No.2. It was further submitted that as per the original Notification, a candidate would be selected based on (100) points, out of which, (80) points are awarded for written examination and (20) points are awarded as weightage points for the service rendered in State Government Hospitals/Institutions/ Programmes on contract or outsourcing basis. However, by virtue of the impugned G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 19.08.2023, the weightage points have been increased from (20) to (30), consequently, reducing the maximum points in the written examination from (80) to (70), which is not only illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, but also contravenes the binding ratio laid down by the Full 3 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 Bench of this Court in its order dated 18.09.2020 in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch. It was further submitted that the Computer- based Test was conducted on 29.12.2024 for (70) marks. However, as per the directions of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch, the total marks should not be less than (80). As such, the (70) questions can be proportionally scaled so as to correspond to (80) points. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to allow the present writ petition, by passing necessary orders.
4. Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 19.08.2023, according permission to increase the number of vacancies in the post of MPHA. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.2 issued the Corrigendum dated 19.08.2023 to Notification No.2/2023, increasing the number of vacancies from (1,560) to (1,666), which is in conformity with law and also Paragraph 2.2 of the Notification, which provided that the number of vacancies is subject to variation until the declaration of results. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the vacancies have been modified subsequent to the issuance of notification is untenable. It was further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.133 was issued not only to increase the number of 4 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 vacancies, but also to enhance the age limit and the service weightage points for the contract/outsourcing employees working in the State Government Hospitals/Institutions/Programmes from (20) to (30). Accordingly, the Corrigendum to the Notification was issued on 19.08.2023, whereas, the last date for submission of online application was 03.10.2023. However, despite being fully aware of the same, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process, submitted her application and approached this Court by filing the present writ petition only on 17.12.2024, i.e., after almost (16) months after the issuance of the Corrigendum and just days before the examination scheduled on 29.12.2024. It was further submitted that this Court declined to grant an interim order in the present writ petition, aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed W.A.No.1435 of 2025, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 27.12.2024.
5. It was further submitted that the circumstances in which the Full Bench of this Court passed orders in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch are different to the present case. In the said case, out of (100) marks, (45) marks were earmarked for the contractual service, which was struck down to (20) marks by a learned Single Judge of this Court that was affirmed by the Full Bench. As such, the said principle is inapplicable to the present case. It was 5 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 further submitted that the post of MPHA (F) is a grassroots-level post and the employees are posted in rural sub-centers, which are located in villages, and many contract/outsourcing employees have been rendering their services for more than (15) years. Therefore, taking into consideration these circumstances, the Government has increased the weightage for experience from (20) to (30) points. It was also submitted that the Computer-based Test has already been conducted on 29.12.2024 and out of (24,268) applicants, (20,600) have appeared for the CBT Examination, and the results were also declared on 19.05.2025. The recruitment process is still in progress and the provisional merit list would be released in due course. As such, the belated prayer of the petitioner for scaling the (70) questions to (80) marks also cannot be sustained, more particularly, in view of the number of applicants who have appeared in the examination and are awaiting the results. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition.
6. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey and others 1, Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court 2 and State of U.P. v. Karunesh Kumar 3.
1 (2015) 11 SCC 493 2 (2025) 2 SCC 1 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1706 6 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024
7. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. Admittedly, respondent No.2 had issued the Recruitment Notification No.2/2023 dated 26.07.2023, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for filling up (1,520) posts of Multi- Purpose Health Assistant (Female), and the said Notification. Paragraph 3 of the said Notification, which deals with the Selection Procedure, is extracted hereunder:
"3. SELECTION PROCEDURE (G.O.Ms.No.60, HM&FW(B) Dept., Dated:7.6.2022; G.O.Ms.No.59, HM&FW (B) Dept., Dated:7.6.2022 & G.O.Ms.No.63, HM&FW (B)Dept., Dated:14.6.202) (3.1) Applicants will be selected based on 100 points of which:
(3.1.l) Maximum of 80 points for percentage of marks obtained in written examination (written examination will have multiple-choice questions will be either OMR based or Computer Based Examination).
(3.1.2) Maximum of 20 points will be awarded for service in state government/hospitals/institutions/programmes on contract/outsourced basis.
(3.2) Maximum of 20 points shall be awarded for the service in state government hospitals/ institutions/ programmes for both contract and outsourced employees as detailed below:
(3.2.1) 2.5 points per 6 months for service rendered in tribal areas.
(3.2.2) 2 points per 6 months for service rendered in other than tribal areas.
(3.2.3) Points to be given for only completed 6 months."
7 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024
9. From the above, it is clear that the selection shall be based on (100) points, out of which, (80) points are awarded for the performance in the written examination and the remaining (20) points weightage for the services rendered on contract/outsourcing basis. However, the Government has subsequently issued G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 19.08.2023, modifying the guidelines of recruitment, by enhancing the upper age limit from (44) years to (49) years; increasing the (1,520) notified vacancies by (146); and amending the selection criteria. Accordingly, a Corrigendum to Notification No.2/2023 was issued on the same day, and the modified Selection Procedure reads as under:
"(3.1) Applicants will be selected based on 100 points of which:
(3.1.l) Maximum of 70 points for percentage of marks obtained in written examination (written examination will have multiple-choice questions will be either OMR based or Computer Based Examination).
(3.1.2) Maximum of 30 points will be awarded for service in state government/hospitals/institutions/programmes on contract/outsourced basis.
(3.2) Maximum of 30 points shall be awarded for the service in state government hospitals/ institutions/ programmes for both contract and outsourced employees as detailed below:
(3.2.1) 2.5 points per 6 months for service rendered in tribal areas.
(3.2.2) 2 points per 6 months for service rendered in other than tribal areas.
(3.2.3) Points to be given for only completed 6 months."
8 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024
10. The Corrigendum to the extent of enhancement of upper age limit and the increase of vacancies is not in dispute. The only points arising for consideration of this Court are whether the respondents were justified in (a) amending the rules in the middle of the game and (b) modifying the selection procedure prescribed in the original Notification No.2/2023 dated 26.07.2023, by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.133 dated 19.08.2023, and its consequential Corrigendum to the Notification.
11. As regards the first aspect, it is pertinent to note that the Notification was published on 26.07.2023, inviting online applications from 25.08.2023 to 19.09.2023. However, the subsequent Corrigendum to the Notification was issued on 19.08.2023, which is even prior to the last date of submission of online applications. Hence, it cannot be construed that the respondents have changed the rules in the middle of the game.
12. The second point for consideration pertains to the award of service weightage points. The service weightage points are usually awarded as recognition to the contractual/outsourcing service rendered by the individuals, and to provide an advantage to those, who already have a direct experience with the duties and responsibilities of the notified post. However, to ensure that a fair opportunity is provided to the remaining candidates, such service 9 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 weightage marks are usually restricted. In the instant case, although the service weightage points were initially notified as (20), they were subsequently, enhanced to (30), thereby, reducing the maximum examination marks from (80) to (70).
13. In this connection, it is apposite to note that an identical matter came for consideration before this Court in W.P.Nos.3753 of 2012 and batch, wherein, (45) marks were meant for the service weightage, while only (55) marks for the written examination. As such, the learned Single Judge of this Court, vide common order dated 09.12.2013, specifically held that awarding more than (20) marks towards weightage for experience will be contrary to the principles of fair play in selection, and the weightage marks were restricted to 20%, and (2) marks for every completed year of service. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder:
"If for any reason the recruitment process is not taken up on regular basis and there was some delay in undertaking any such exercise and for having secured the essential human resources for carrying on the operations, the remedy in their subsequent selection, would lie in pegging the maximum weightage marks not to exceed 20 or 25%. It is reasonable to assume that the number of candidates who can secure 40 + number of marks out of 55 in the written examination could be very few. 40 out of 55 marks amounts to 72+ percentage. Therefore, when 22 out of 55 is the minimum marks required for qualifying and if 20 marks are treated as the maximum experience/weightage marks, only few candidates will go to the extent of securing 42 out of 100 (i.e. 22+20) and those who secure 42 out of 55 for the written test, in that process, are less likely to be effected. Still, a person who secured 40 out of 55 will just have a chance to get selected in comparison to a man who barely cleared the written test but got the benefit of 10 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 maximum marks for the service weightage. Therefore, in my opinion the percentage of weightage marks shouldpreferably be set in the region of 15-20%, under no circumstances, the total marks for weightage shall exceed 20%. Otherwise, it will not be an equal race between those who come from open market and those who have rendered service on contract basis. Though, in a relay race, it may not be uncommon that some participants can have a slight advantage of a headstart, but nonetheless the selection criteria must be fair and objective in all respects. Granting weightage marks for the relevant experience, cannot be totally frowned upon, but at the same it should not result in a lopsided selections.
While one can see some merit in awarding weightage marks for experience, but in view of the fact that for recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineers and Lower Division Clerks, written test is carrying maximum marks of 55, the weightage marks cannot go to the extent of upsetting the selection of those candidates who have fared reasonably well in the said written test. As was already noticed, a person who secures 40 out of 55 marks in the written test in fact secures 72% of the marks. But however, he may not stand a chance for selection if more than 20 weightage marks are awarded to the other candidates. Minimum pass marks for open competition are being 22. Those who get awarded 20 weightage marks will automatically secure 22 + 20 = 42 and such candidates will get the selection first rather than the other candidates. In this view of the matter, the impugned selection criteria of awarding a maximum of 45 weightage marks are unjustly loaded in favour of the in-service contract labour, if more than 20 weightage marks are sought to be given to them.
Hence, awarding more than 20 marks towards weightage for experience will be contrary to the principles of fair play in selection."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. However, the aggrieved candidates preferred writ appeals against the aforesaid common order vide W.A.Nos.110 of 2014 and batch, which were disposed of vide common judgment dated 03.06.2014. The Division Bench has upheld the principle that the weightage for service shall not exceed (20) marks. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:
"9. The procedure adopted by the Discoms was erroneous on the face of it. Though it is not uncommon that experience, in a 11 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 particular category, is treated as a factor in the process of selection, it cannot be given such importance as to overshadow the performance of merit under the prescribed procedure. Even if a fresh candidate has secured 80 to 90 percent of marks in the written test i.e., 40 or 45 out of 55, a contract worker who worked for five years would be preferred even if he gets just 20 marks in the written test. The reason is that he would be awarded 2½ marks for each block of six months aggregating '25'. This procedure virtually, amounts to mockery of the very process of selection. According such primacy to experience, would render the very service rules nugatory. It is too well known that testing of a candidate for selection and appointment would be with reference to the prescribed qualifications and not external factors.
10. We find that the learned single Judge has taken the correct view of the matter and indicated a balanced procedure that would take all the relevant factors into account. One area where slight deviation is needed is about the unit of time of experience. The learned single Judge directed that two marks shall be allotted for each year of experience subject to the maximum of 20. It is not seriously disputed by the respondents that the unit of engagement on contract basis, by the Discoms is six months. Since there is a maximum cap of 20 marks, we direct that '2' marks shall be allotted for experience for each completed block of six months instead of one year. Since the written test was held for 55 marks, the same cannot be treated as holding valid for '80' marks; in the light of the judgment of the learned single Judge. Though the statement reflecting the corresponding figures by changing the percentage are furnished, we are of the view that the same would lead to more complications. Conducting of a fresh test would bring about more objectivity, clarity and transparency."
15. This principle was assailed before the Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein, the Hon'ble Court, while declining to interfere with the said orders, upheld the restriction of service weightage marks to (20). It is thus established that the weightage marks for the contractual/outsourcing service shall not exceed (20).
16. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has heavily placed reliance upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch dated 18.09.2020, wherein, it 12 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 was categorically held that as a part of the selection process for direct recruitment, the employer has the power to apportion marks towards service rendered on temporary basis. However, the marks, so apportioned, shall not be more than (20) marks out of the total (100) marks, or not more than 20% of the total marks.
"94. By assigning marks to contract service, the employer affords an opportunity to person working on contract basis/on outsourcing basis to join the regular stream. Therefore, the present exercise answers the twin tests of valid classification, i.e., intelligible differentia between contract employees and open market candidates, and the object, i.e., to give opportunity to seek permanent public employment to employees working on contract basis/ on outsourcing basis. Moreover, by selecting the experienced persons, who have knowledge of the requirements of the job, the efficiency of the organization is strengthened. A high efficiency is in the public interest. Hence, the classification certainly withstands the test of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It is, thus, reasonable. Therefore, if the employer seeks to earmark certain percentage of marks out of total marks in the recruitment examination towards contract/outsourcing service in the process of selection, it does not offend either Article 14, or Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
95. The decision under challenge concerning State Government service is indeed, well considered and conscious decision. For, it has been taken after having regard to the peculiar circumstances prevailing in the Health Care Administration of the State Government.
96. Further, the Power Utilities Companies are governed by the Settlement arrived on 18.12.2010 under section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which Settlement provides weightage to contract service. However, though Settlement envisaged 45 marks as maximum weightage, as held by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 09.12.2013 in W.P.No.3753 of 2012 and batch, affirmed by the First Division Bench, maximum weightage marks is reduced to 20 marks and thus the TS TRANSCO is bound to provide 20 marks as weightage to contract service.
97. Thus, grant of weightage marks is legally permissible. Hence, the arguments raised by the learned Counsel against the grant of weightage marks are clearly untenable. Hence, unacceptable.
13 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 ...
125. This issue is answered as under:
(i) Government service:
(a) If the Service Rules/policy decisions do not provide weightage to contract service/service on outsourcing basis, no temporary employee can assert that his temporary service should be reckoned in the selection process for direct recruitment;
(b) If no provision is made in the Service Rules/policy decisions, it is for the employer to extend weightage to temporary service while making regular recruitment;
(ii) Power Utilities:
The Settlements entered into by the managements to provide weightage to service rendered on contract basis/on outsourcing basis confers right to all those temporary employees governed by the Settlements and claim weightage marks for such service and the Power Utilities Companies are bound to provide weightage marks. However, it is clarified that even though Settlement dated 18.12.2010 fixed maximum weightage marks as 45, the same was reduced to 20 marks in view of the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 09.12.2013 in W.P.No.3753 of 2012 and batch, affirmed by the first Division Bench.
(iii) State Government service and service in Power Utilities Companies:
(a) While extending weightage to temporary service it is permissible for the employer to prescribe parameters and to restrict grant of such weightage to a class of people, or to people working with that employer/ service in a particular post, if necessary etc. Therefore, no person has a right to claim weightage to temporary service as a matter of course;
(b) It is for the employer to make an assessment of job requirements of a post in its service; it is open to the employer to refuse to grant weightage to temporary service rendered in a post, within its employment or outside.
...
129. In the Medical and Health Department, a person, working on temporary basis in the Urban area, has to render ten years of continuous service in order to gain twenty marks. Further, in the AYUSH Department, a Medical Officer has to work for twenty years in the Urban area, and ten years in the Rural area in order to get twenty marks. Ten years and more is a long service. Even if a person worked in the Tribal Area, or the 14 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 Rural area for some time, and later moved to rural area from Tribal area and/or from rural area to urban area, he would get less weightage marks compared to a person exclusively working in tribal area/rural area, as the case may be. For, the apportionment of marks depends on amount of service rendered in tribal area/rural area/urban area.
130. Assigning higher weightage to service rendered in Tribal areas and Rural areas reflects the Governments' resolve to recognize the service rendered by the contract employees in the areas where attention for health and sanitation is required, and where working conditions are far less satisfactory as compared to the urban areas. Though, a person working in Tribal Area gets high percentage of marks for less service rendered by him, having regard to the fact that such person has rendered service in a hard terrain, serving the most needy people and in inaccessible places, government's decision to assign them higher weightage cannot be said as an arbitrary decision. It meets the parameters of well considered decision; such classification does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
131. By splitting the apportionment of marks on the amount of service rendered in tribal/rural/urban areas, it cannot be said that the State Government has erred in prescribing 20% as weightage. Considering the justification given in support of the said decision, the assignment of 20% marks cannot be said to be excessive, thereby warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners on this point are unsustainable.
132. The justification for such assignment meets the parameters of reasonable classification with object sought to be achieved i.e., recognizing the service rendered on temporary basis in harsh conditions; affording opportunity to contract employees to seek public employment permanently; securing the services of persons who gained experience in the same post as compared to inexperienced persons. Thus, the assignment of 20 % weightage marks satisfies the requirement of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
...
135. This issue is answered as under:
Prescribing 20% as weightage to contract service/service rendered on outsourcing basis while making regular recruitment is not excessive. It is within the powers of employer. Hence, legal and valid.
THE OPINION OF THE FULL BENCH:
136. Having considered various aspects concerning regular recruitment in public employment, the issues are answered as under:
15 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 I. STATE GOVERNMENT SERVICE:
1. This Court upholds the constitutional validity of Rule 31 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.
Moreover, the exercise of power under the said Rule is legally valid.
2. The power of relaxation of Service Rules can be exercised by the Governor in order to remove the restriction on computation of temporary service imposed by the Service Rule, and to enable the temporary employee to compute the temporary service as weightage in the process of regular recruitment;
3. However, if the Service Rules do not envisage assignment of marks for temporary service in the regular recruitment, it is for the employer to assign such weightage. For, such a power is an enabling power. It does not bestow any vested right upon a temporary employee to insist upon extension of weightage to temporary service rendered by him;
II. POWER UTILITIES COMPANIES:
1. As the binding Settlements require assignment of marks for temporary service in the regular recruitment, the temporary employee is entitled to seek its enforcement;
2. It is permissible for the employer to restrict application of weightage to temporary service rendered only under him and/or in a particular post;
III. STATE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND SERVICE IN POWER UTILITIES COMPANIES:
As part of the selection process for direct recruitment, the employer has the power to apportion marks towards service rendered on temporary basis. However, the marks, so apportioned, shall not be more than 20 marks out of total marks of 100, or not more than 20% of the total marks."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. Admittedly, the aforesaid principle has attained finality, and is therefore, binding upon the State Government Services.
18. Coming to the stand taken by the respondents, the enhancement of service weightage points from (20) to (30) vide G.O.Ms.No.133 and the Corrigendum to the Notification, both 16 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 dated 19.08.2023, was a policy decision, carried out with a view to acknowledge the long-standing services rendered by the contractual/outsourced employees, particularly those working in the rural and tribal areas. Reliance has been placed upon several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, asserting that such policy matters fall within the exclusive domain of the appointing authority and that the Court shall refrain to interfere with such decisions.
However, this Court is of the view that the reliance placed by the respondents, upon the said decisions, is misplaced and unfounded. In the instant case, the impugned enhancement of service weightage marks from (20) to (30), is directly contrary to the binding precedent of the Full Bench of this Court and also the decision of the learned Single Judge (decisions discussed supra), that the service weightage marks shall be restricted to a maximum of (20) only.
19. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned enhancement of service weightage points from (20) to (30) is unsustainable, and it is therefore, liable to be set aside.
20. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned G.O.Ms.No.133, HM&FW (B) Department, dated 19.08.2023 and its subsequent Corrigendum to Notification, to the 17 PK, J W.P.No.35779 of 2024 extent of enhancement of service weightage points to (30), and the respondents are directed to conclude the recruitment to the post of Multi-Purpose Health Assistant (Female), strictly in accordance with the selection process under the original Notification No.2/2023 dated 26.07.2023.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.
____________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK Date : 12.11.2025 GSP