AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 Questioning the action of the respondents in not including the names of the petitioners in the merit list for the posts of Veterinary Assistants even though they got higher marks that the other candidates and not following the rule of reservation for ST category as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the notification dated 02.06.2017, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
2 Mr.G.Madhusudhan Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the Telangana State Public Service Commission, the second respondent herein, issued a Notification No.30 of 2017 calling for applications for the posts of Veterinary Assistants in Category (4) of Class A in Animal Husbandry Department, which are district cadre posts. The petitioners who belong to Scheduled Tribe category have appeared for the examination. Out of 541 posts, there are 15, 7 and 10 posts insofar as Warangal, Adilabad and Khammam districts are concerned, in respect of ST (G) category. First petitioner got 174 marks, second petitioner got 183 marks and third petitioner got 137 marks. All the vacancies for ST category in Khammam Warangal and Adilabad districts were earmarked for agency areas, thereby the candidatures of the petitioners were not considered for inclusion of their names in the merit list on the ground that the petitioners though they belong to ST community, but do not belong to schedule areas; therefore, the category of the petitioners is being considered as general category, which is against to the settled principles of law.
3 The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no segregation in the notification and as per the annexure regarding the vacancies attached to the notification shows that there is a ‘*’ for four districts i.e. Adilabad, Warangal, Khammam and Mahaboobnagar and that note indicates that ‘to be filled by local STs with 100% reservation in schedule areas as per G.O.Ms.No.64 SW (V) Department. The petitioners also come under the definition of local candidates and hence they ought to have been included in the merit list. He further submitted that the respondents having verified the certificates of the petitioners and having allowed them to appear for the examination, ought to have included the petitioners in the merit list instead of rejecting their candidature on the ground that they belong to non-schedule areas. It is his further submission that the petitioners are entitled to be benefit under the open category as per the marks obtained by them and even though 100% ST posts are reserved for agency areas, the petitioners would be entitled under Rule 22 of reservations along with other communities. It is his further contention that if the petitioners are not entitled to either under ST quota or under open category, the respondents ought to have rejected the applications of the petitioners at the first instance itself and ought not to have allowed them to sit for the examination or for verification of the documents.
4 It is the predominant contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the notification did not say anything that only ST community persons belong to agency areas be considered for the posts of Veterinary Assistant. He further submits that if the roster is strictly followed, certain posts would have arisen for the other areas (non-schedule areas) for the ST candidates.
5 On the other hand, Sri D.Balakishan Rao, the learned standing counsel for the Telangana State Public Service Commission, basing on the averments made in the counter affidavit, contended that Para No.9 (IV) of the notification which invoked the G.O.Ms.No.64, Social Welfare (V) Department dated 4.04.1988 deals with reservation to local S.T candidates of scheduled areas (Agency Areas), which reads as under:
“As per G.O.Ms.No.64, Social Welfare (V) Department, Dt:04.04.1988, the post of Veterinary Assistant in Animal Husbandry department shall be filled in, in the Scheduled Areas of Telangana State only by the local members of the Scheduled Tribes, notwithstanding anything contained in any other Order, Rule or Law in force.”
6 The learned standing counsel further submits that as per the vacancy position notified in the Notification No.30/2017, the petitioners are eligible for OC (G)-Local vacancies notified in Adilabad, Warangal and Khammam districts. However, the ST category vacancies in Adilabad, Warangal and Khammam districts are earmarked for agency area. As such as per the above G.O, these vacancies have to be filled in with local ST Agency Area candidates only. Though the petitioners belong to ST community they do not belong to scheduled areas, as such their candidature cannot be considered for ST Agency Area vacancies.
7 The learned standing counsel further submits that the petitioners have secured less number of marks and hence they could not get selection against OC (G) – Local vacancy.
8 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and having gone through the notification dated 02.06.2017, this Court is of the view that the grievance of the petitioners cannot be redressed in this writ petition for the foregoing reasons.
9 Firstly, in Annexure-I appended to the notification dated 2.06.2017, the respondent authorities have clearly specified that the ST category vacancies in Adilabad, Warangal and Khammam districts are earmarked for agency area i.e. they are to be filled by local ST’s with 100% reservation in scheduled areas as per G.O.Ms.No.64, S.W(V) Dept, dated 04.04.1988. So if at all the petitioners have any grievance in this regard, they ought to have challenged the notification itself in the first instance. Right from the beginning the petitioners have knowledge about the break up of vacancy position for the post of Veterinary Assistant in Animal Husbandry Department. There are no vacancies under ST general quota in the districts of Adilabad, Khammam and Warangal as per the notification. So their candidature has to be considered under general category only as there were no posts under the ST category in general. Though the petitioners belong to ST community, but they do not belong to scheduled areas. In the absence of any relaxation in rule of reservations earmarked specifically for ST category in the agency areas only, the case of the writ petitioners was considered appropriately as general category and hence their cases were considered under ST category General, clearly in terms of the notification. Hence the contention of the petitioners cannot be countenanced on this ground.
10 Secondly, in view of the finding given above, the candidature of the petitioners has to be considered under general quota. As regards the marks obtained by the petitioners, they secure low merit thereby disqualified in the written examination. On this score also the petitioners cannot agitate as they could not get selection due to low merit.
11 In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this writ petition shall also stand dismissed.