Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 564 (TS)

M. Raji Reddy v. Dy General Manager

2020-07-17

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

body2020
ORDER : 1. As the issue raised in these writ petitions is common, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Writ Petition No. 13222 of 2017 is filed with the following prayer: “........to issue a writ/order preferably in the nature of Mandamus and after calling for records pertaining to impugned proceedings Employment Notification No. 01/2017, dated 09.03.2017 issued/passed by 1st respondent declare the action of respondents in canceling the earlier selections done/completed pursuant to the Notification No. 2/2015 dated 15.5.2015 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and unconstitutional and consequently quash the impugned Notification proposing to conduct written examination/test for the purpose of appointment to the post of Junior Muzdoor (WO Grade) from eligible Land Oustees of NTPC, Ramagundam as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, wholly without power or jurisdiction and contrary to the order and Judgment rendered in W.A. No. 138/2017, dated 31.1.2017 and quash the same as such and consequently direct the respondents to declare the results of the selections completed pursuant to the earlier Notification No. 1/2015 dated 15.5.2015 and consequently appoint the petitioner in the above said vacancies with retrospective effect.....” 3. Writ Petition No. 10252 of 2018 is filed with the following prayer: “......to issue a writ, or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus/and after calling for records pertaining to the Employment notification No. 2/15, dated 16.5.2015 passed by the 1st respondent and consequently declare the action of the Respondents in not declaring the results of the selection Committee and consequently not issuing appointment orders to all the selected land oustee persons consequent to the selections held pursuant to the Employment notification No. 2/15 dated 16.5.2015 calling for application from eligible land oustees for appointment to 25 posts of Junior Mazdoors (WO) Grade as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Articles 12, 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents herein to forthwith declare the results of the said selections and consequently issue appointment orders to all the selected persons including these petitioners forthwith with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay, seniority etc.” 4. W.P. No. 46897 of 2018 is filed with the following prayer: “.......to issue a Writ, or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus/declare the action of the respondents in not declaring the results of the selection Committee and consequently not issuing appointment orders to all the selected land oustee persons consequent to the selections held pursuant to the Employment notification No. 2/15 dated 15.05.2015 calling for application from eligible land oustees for appointment to 25 posts of Junior Mazdoors (WO) Grade as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Articles 12, 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents herein to forthwith declare the results of the said selections and consequently issue appointment orders to all the selected persons including these petitioners forthwith with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay, seniority, etc.” 5. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, counsel for petitioners and Ms. G. Sudha, Standing Counsel for respondents. 6. A perusal of the entire record discloses that this matter has got a checkered history. Initially, National Thermal Power Corporation (for short “NTPC”) had acquired lands belonging to the petitioners’ family members and NTPC had taken a policy decision to provide employment to such of those land oustees whose lands were acquired. Accordingly, NTPC had issued Notification No. 2/13, dated 09.07.2013, requesting the employment exchange, Karimnagar to sponsor the names of eligible land oustees for recruitment as Junior Mazdoors, on or before 30.07.2013. The NTPC, without bringing the said recruitment to a logical conclusion, had issued another notification on 16.05.2015, again requesting the employment exchange to sponsor the names of eligible candidates for filling up of 25 vacancies of Junior Mazdoor, to be exclusively filled up by the land oustees. The scheme of selection for 25 posts of Junior Mazdoor was only by way of interview and one of the contesting candidates had challenged the said notification by filing W.P. No. 26043 of 2016, on the ground that NTPC is conducting selections to the post of Junior Mazdoor solely based on interview, whereas, office Memorandums dated 09.10.2015, 14.12.2015 and 29.12.2015 dispensed with conducting of interviews for the posts of Group “C” and Group “D.” This Court was pleased to allow the said writ petition vide orders dated 14.12.2016. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner in W.P. No. 13222 of 2017 had filed Writ Appeal No. 138 of 2017 and contended that as per the Notification dated 16.05.2015, the selections to the post of Junior Mazdoor were to be made only by way of interviews and subsequent to the notification issued, the Central Government has issued various Memorandums dated 09.10.2015, 14.12.2015 and 29.12.2015, dispensing with interviews for recruitment to Group “C” and Group “D” posts. The said Memorandums have no retrospective application in respect of notification dated 16.05.2015 and hence, the selections cannot be set at knot, merely on the ground that the selections to the post of Junior Mazdoor were conducted based on the interviews. The Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to allow the Writ Appeal with the following observations: “The 4th respondent is a company incorporates under the Companies Act, 1956 and is a legal entity distinct from the Government of India. The mode and manner in which appointments to posts in the 4th respondent is required to be made are governed by the Rules made by the 4th respondent. In fact, the O.M. dated 14.12.2015 itself requires the 4th respondent to amend its Rules to bring it in conformity with the requirement of dispensing with interviews and conducting selection to group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts only by way of a written examination. The time stipulated in the said O.M. for NTPC to complete the exercise, was by 31.12.2015. Interviews, pursuant to the notification dated 15.05.2015, were held between 26.12.2015 and 31.12.2015 even before the time stipulated for NTPC to amend its Rules expired on 31.12.2015. It is also necessary to note that NTPC has not amended its Rules till date. Since the selection process, for appointment to the posts of Junior Mazdoors in NTPC, is governed by Rules prescribed in this regard by the 4th respondent itself, the selection process initiated by them, for appointment of land oustees as Junior Mazdoors, cannot be faulted on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2015. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court, in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 , the selection process cannot be changed midstream, and the amended Rules cannot be applied to employment notifications issued prior to the date on which the amended rules came into force. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court, in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 , the selection process cannot be changed midstream, and the amended Rules cannot be applied to employment notifications issued prior to the date on which the amended rules came into force. Viewed from any angle, the selection process could not have been interdicted on the basis of the Government of India O.M. dated 14.12.2015. On this short ground, the order under appeal is liable to be, and is accordingly, set aside. While the submission of Sri. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, that several irregularities were committed in the selection process, cannot be brushed aside, it must also be borne in mind that the mere fact that interviews have been held does not confer any right on the participating candidates to claim appointment nor does it obligate NTPC to make appointments to the posts for which interviews were conducted. Whether appointments should be made pursuant to the selection process, or whether a fresh selection process should be undertaken, are all matters for the 4th respondent to decide. Needless to state that the action taken by NTPC in this regard can always be subjected to challenge, by any person aggrieved, in subsequent legal proceedings. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Writ Appeal is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.” 7. The counsel for petitioners had contended that an argument was advanced by the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 26043 of 2016, who was respondent No. 1 in the Writ Appeal that several irregularities were committed in the selection process and the entire selections should be set at knot. The Hon’ble Division Bench, taking into consideration the said contention of the 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal, has held that though the said allegation cannot be brushed aside, it must also be borne in mind that the mere fact that interviews have been held does not confer any right on the participating candidates to claim appointment nor does it obligate NTPC to make appointments to the post for which interviews were conducted. It is also held that whether appointments should be made pursuant to the selection process, or whether a fresh selection process should be undertaken, are all matters to be decided by NTPC. It is also held that whether appointments should be made pursuant to the selection process, or whether a fresh selection process should be undertaken, are all matters to be decided by NTPC. A passing reference was made that if there are any irregularities, it is always open for the NTPC to conclude the appointments pursuant to Notification dated 16.05.2015 or take up fresh selections. 8. Counsel for petitioners had contended that the NTPC, instead of complying with the orders passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, had issued a fresh notification on 09.03.2017, wherein, once again, the NTPC had cancelled the selections only on the ground that it had conducted selections for the post of Junior Mazdoor contrary to the Office Memorandums dated 09.10.2015, 14.12.2015 and 29.12.2015, while concluding the selections solely based on the interviews and unilaterally cancelled the selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015. Counsel for petitioners contended that such an action of NTPC is contrary to the specific findings given by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 138 of 2017, which was allowed vide orders dated 31.01.2017. Therefore, the entire action of NTPC in cancelling the selections pursuant to Notification dated 16.05.2015 is contrary to the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 138 of 2017, and it also amounts to contemptuous action of the NTPC, as the action of NTPC in cancelling the selection process only on the ground that the selections were conducted solely by way of oral interview, which goes against the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench and the Hon’ble Division Bench has categorically held that the amended Rules cannot be applied to the employment notification issued prior to the date on which such amended Rules came into force by following the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in K. Manjusree’s case (supra), however, liberty was given to the NTPC by the Hon’ble Division Bench that if there are any irregularities, it is always open for the NTPC to cancel the Notification dated 16.05.2015 on those grounds, but the NTPC cannot cancel the selection process initiated pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 merely on the ground that the selections were conducted solely based on oral interviews. Challenging the subsequent Notification No. 01/2017, dated 09.03.2017, W.P. No. 13222 of 2017 is filed, and this Court suspended the impugned notification dated 09.03.2017, vide orders dated 17.04.2017. Challenging the subsequent Notification No. 01/2017, dated 09.03.2017, W.P. No. 13222 of 2017 is filed, and this Court suspended the impugned notification dated 09.03.2017, vide orders dated 17.04.2017. W.P. Nos. 10252 of 2018 and 46897 of 2018 are filed seeking directions to declare the results pursuant to the selections made vide Notification dated 16.05.2015. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners had further contended that the NTPC has filed vacate stay petition in I.A. No. 1 of 2017 in W.P. No. 13222 of 2017 and this Court, vide orders dated 21.02.2018, was pleased to dismiss the said I.A. and made the interim orders absolute. Counsel for petitioners had further contended that though the Notification is dated 16.05.2015, actually, the interviews were conducted in a hurried manner between 26.12.2015 and 31.12.2015 and as adequate/several irregularities were noticed in the selections pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015, the NTPC has rightly cancelled the selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 and issued fresh Notification dated 09.03.2017. 10. The Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that the NTPC has taken a conscious decision to cancel the selections made pursuant to Notification dated 16.05.2015, as the said selections were made solely based on oral interviews, which is contrary to various office Memorandums issued by the Central Government on 09.10.2015, 14.12.2015 and 29.12.2015. It is contended that the Rules of NTPC were amended vide orders dated 03.03.2017 and the NTPC has taken a conscious decision on 03.03.2017 to cancel the selections made pursuant to Notification dated 16.05.2015 and issued a fresh Notification on 09.03.2017 and the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court had given liberty to the NTPC either to make appointments pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 or to undertake fresh selection process. Pursuant to the said observations only, the NTPC has cancelled the selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 and since the Rules were amended vide proceedings dated 03.03.2017, a fresh Notification was issued on 09.03.2017. 11. The learned Standing Counsel has further contended that the NTPC has cancelled the selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 after obtaining legal opinion and the petitioners have no vested right to get appointed as the selections are not yet finalized and the results of the said selections are not declared. 11. The learned Standing Counsel has further contended that the NTPC has cancelled the selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 after obtaining legal opinion and the petitioners have no vested right to get appointed as the selections are not yet finalized and the results of the said selections are not declared. Therefore, the petitioners have no vested right to seek appointment as Junior Mazdoors and if they are entitled, they are at liberty to apply pursuant to the fresh notification issued by the NTPC on 09.03.2017, but the petitioners cannot contend that the selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 should be concluded and they should be appointed based on the said selections. Therefore, there are no merits and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 12. This Court, having heard the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the NTPC has issued a Notification on 16.05.2015 and in the said Notification, it was categorically stated that the selections should be held solely based on the oral interview and subsequent thereto, the Central Government had issued Office Memorandums dated 09.10.2015, 14.12.2015 and 29.12.2015, wherein, the Central Government has taken a policy decision to dispense with the conducting of oral interviews for Group “C” and Group “D” posts and these office Memorandums were issued subsequent to the Notification issued by the NTPC and the Division Bench of this Court, relying on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K. Manjusree (supra), held that the selection process cannot be changed midstream and the amended Rules cannot be applied to employment notifications issued prior to the date on which the amended Rules came into force. On that count, allowed the appeal with a specific observation, “viewed from any angle, the selection process could not have been interdicted on the basis of the Government of India O.M. dated 14.12.2015. On this short ground, the order under appeal is liable to be and is accordingly, set aside.” However, liberty was given by the Hon’ble Division Bench to the NTPC to finalise the selection process or take up fresh selections if there were any irregularities. On this short ground, the order under appeal is liable to be and is accordingly, set aside.” However, liberty was given by the Hon’ble Division Bench to the NTPC to finalise the selection process or take up fresh selections if there were any irregularities. The NTPC could have cancelled the selections on the ground of adequate/several irregularities in the selections made pursuant to Notification dated 16.05.2015, but the NTPC has cancelled the earlier selections made pursuant to Notification dated 16.05.2015 solely on the ground that the NTPC has amended the recruitment Rules vide orders dated 03.03.2017 and the earlier selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 are contrary to Office Memorandums dated 09.10.2015, 14.12.2015 and 29.12.2015, as the selections were made solely based on oral interviews, whereas the above said Office Memorandums have dispensed with oral interviews for Group “C” and Group “D” categories of posts. The action of NTPC in cancelling the earlier selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 runs contrary to the specific observations made by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, which reads as follows: “Since the selection process, for appointment to the posts of Junior Mazdoors in NTPC, is governed by Rules prescribed in this regard by the 4th respondent itself, the selection process initiated by them, for appointment of land oustees as Junior Mazdoors, cannot be faulted on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 14.12.2015. Even otherwise, as held by the Supreme Court, in K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512 , the selection process cannot be changed midstream, and the amended Rules cannot be applied to employment notifications issued prior to the date on which the amended rules came into force. Viewed from any angle, the selection process could not have been interdicted on the basis of the Government of India O.M. dated 14.12.2015. On this short ground, the order under appeal is liable to be, and is accordingly, set aside.” 13. Therefore, the NTPC could not have cancelled the selections on the ground which was held to be bad by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order dated 31.01.2017 in W.A. No. 138 of 2017. Therefore, the impugned Notification dated 09.03.2017 issued by the NTPC is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. Therefore, the NTPC could not have cancelled the selections on the ground which was held to be bad by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order dated 31.01.2017 in W.A. No. 138 of 2017. Therefore, the impugned Notification dated 09.03.2017 issued by the NTPC is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The decision of NTPC to cancel the earlier selections made pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 is also liable to be set aside as it is contrary to the findings of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 138 of 2017, dated 31.01.2017, and accordingly, it is set aside. The NTPC is directed to conclude the selection process initiated pursuant to the Notification dated 16.05.2015 within a reasonable period of time, preferably within a period of Three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With these observations, W.P. No. 13222 of 2017 is allowed. 14. In view of the above findings, no further orders are needed to be specifically passed in W.P. Nos. 10252 of 2018 and 46897 of 2018, which shall stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid findings. 15. No order as to costs. 16. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.