Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1854 (TS)

Guguloth Sagar v. State of Telangana

2025-12-17

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. Heard Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home) appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Sri Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioners approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent in not considering the representation of the petitioners dated 10-07-2023 for recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4735/2022, dated 23-11-2022 between The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and Anr Vs. Narimetla Vamshi and Ors pursuant to the Notification dated 31-05-2018 though the person who got equal marks to the petitioner was got appointed as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the 2 nd respondent to for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies as per the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4735/2022, dated 23-11-2022 and to pass…” 3. The case of the petitioners in brief as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioners in support of the present writ petition is as under: i) The petitioners applied for the posts of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in pursuancse of the Notification dated 31.05.2018 and the petitioners qualified in all stages of selection and secured marks equal to the last selected candidates but were not selected due to age preference. As several selected candidates did not join or complete the selection process, many vacancies remained unfilled. ii) Similarly situated candidates approached the Apex Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 and the Apex Court, vide order dated 23.11.2022, affirmed that such unfilled vacancies ought to be filled by the next meritorious candidates. iii) Relying on the said judgment, the petitioners submitted representation dated 10.07.2023 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not considered the said representation as on date. iii) Relying on the said judgment, the petitioners submitted representation dated 10.07.2023 to the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had not considered the said representation as on date. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD: A) The relevant portion of the judgment of the Apex Court dated 23.11.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022 in “The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another vs. Narimetla Vamshi and others” is extracted hereunder: “Learned counsel also seeks to rely upon the judicial precedent in “Munja Praveen and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors.” reported as (2017) 14 SCC 797 , where while interpreting the concept of fall out vacancies, if any, due to relinquishment and non- joining, it has been opined that the appropriate interpretation of the GOM would be that after the appointment order is issued and the appointed person does not join, then the vacancy cannot be filled in on the basis of the waiting list or by operating the merit list downward. Lastly it is urged that the Court has taken care of the scenario where a person has joined and left as those vacancies are to be carried forward. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the conspectus of the aforesaid submissions and find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The manner of interpreting the rule in question has already been set out in Munja Praveen case (Supra). If a candidate has not gone through the process of recruitment, he has not done what was required to be done by him as set out herein above, it cannot be construed as a vacancy arising which has to be carried forward to the next recruitment process. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies which have remained on these different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not frustrated by not filling up of the vacancies. As to the consequences of the large number of vacancies which have remained on these different accounts, the details of which have been set out herein above, again lend support to this conclusion that a large part of the process is not frustrated by not filling up of the vacancies. Public employment is an important source of employbility for young people in the country where we are facing problems of adequacy of jobs; An interpretation of the kind sought to be propounded by the appellants would go against the very ethos of providing public employment to persons eligible and meritorious, by construction of a rule in a manner leaving a large number of vacancies unfilled. This would not be an appropriate interpretation. We are thus in agreement with the view adopted and accordingly dismiss the appeal leaving parties to bear their own costs. Interim order(s) stands vacated.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contends that the petitioners have addressed a detailed representation dated 10.07.2023 to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein, requesting them to fill up the unfilled 1,370 vacancies in pursuance of Notification No.88/Rect./Admn.I/2018, dated 31.05.2018, duly taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Munja Praveen and others v. State of Telangana and others, (2017) 14 SCC 797 . 6. The specific prayer of the petitioners is to consider the grievance of the petitioners as put forth in the petitioners’ representation dated 10.07.2023, seeking recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022, dated 23.11.2022. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that appropriate directions may be issued to respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 10.07.2023, seeking recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable in (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above), within a reasonable period. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Board. 9. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners does not dispute the said submission made by the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 Board. 9. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2- Board, c) The judgment of the Apex Court dated 23.11.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.4735 of 2022 in “The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another vs. Narimetla Vamshi and others” (referred to and extracted above), d) The law laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in “Munja Praveen and others v. State of Telangana and others” reported in (2017) 14 SCC 797 , e) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at paragraph Nos.5 to 8 of the present order, The Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 herein to consider the grievance of the petitioners as put forth in the petitioners’ representation dated 10.07.2023, seeking filling up of the unfilled 1,370 vacancies in pursuance of Notification No. 88/ Rect./ Admn.I / 2018, dated 31.05.2018, duly considering the case of the petitioners for recruitment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee (SCT) Police Constable (TSSP) and (Civil) in the existing vacancies, duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgment of the Apex Court dated 23.11.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 in “The Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board and another v. Narimetla Vamshi and others” (referred to and extracted above), in strict adherence to the specific observations made thereunder, and to pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance to law, and duly communicate the decision on the petitioners’ representation dated 10.07.2023 to the petitioners herein. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.