Banoth Suresh vs State Of Telangana

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the Memorandum Rc.No.71/Rect./ Admn-I/2020, dated 05.09.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for selection/appointment to the post of SCT SI (Civil) under BC-A, special reservation meant for NCC category instead of SCT RSI (TTSP) pursuant to the Recruitment Notification Rc.No.89/Rect/Admn-1/2018, dated 31.05.2018 for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (SCT-SI) (Civil) under NCC quota in BC-A Category though he is a meritorious person, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SCT SI (Civil) under BC-A by following reservation meant for NCC category as per his merit and to send him for training on par with others in the ensuing selections with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner belongs to BC-A category and being eligible and qualified for appointment to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police (SCT-SI) (Civil) and also holds NCC-B certificate and was eligible for reservation under special category, he applied for the post pursuant to the notification dated 31.05.2018. It is submitted that the petitioner participated in the selection process and secured 239 marks in final written examination and got selected and was appointed to the post of SCT SI-TSSP under BC-A category. The petitioner submits that since he has NCC-B certificate, he is entitled to be appointed to the post of Stipendiary Cadet Trainee Sub-Inspector of Police (SCT-SI) (Civil). He further submits that he secured more marks than the cut of marks as declared and is eligible to be appointed to the post of SCT-SI (Civil), but while declaring the result, the authorities did not take into consideration the reservation under NCC category and if the same were taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been selected and appointed to the post SCT-SI (Civil) instead of SCT-SI (TSSP). It is submitted that the petitioner is discharging his duties as SCT RSI (TSSP), but since there is a 3% reservation for NCC categories for the post of SCT-SI (Civil), he is seeking consideration of his case only according to his merit and special reservation available to NCC candidates. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a representation on 06.07.2020 to this effect, but the same was rejected vide memorandum dated 05.09.2020. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reason given for rejecting the representation of the petitioner is that the provisional selections were issued on 12.07.2019 and an opportunity was given to the candidates (selected/non-selected) to submit clarifications if any, on the provisional selection of SCT-SI (Civil) and/or equivalent posts from 13.07.2019 to 15.07.2019 through online, but the petitioner did not avail the said opportunity but filed a representation after a period of one year thereafter and therefore, it cannot be entertained as the final selections were completed and the candidates also will be completing the Induction Training in another one month.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the petitioner hails from a rural background and therefore, he was not aware of the said procedure and therefore, he could not make the representation within the above period. It is submitted that the respondents, were required to follow the correct procedure has held by this Court in W.P.No.11118 of 2019, which has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP No.13829 of 2022, dated 09.01.2023 irrespective of whether the petitioner has made the claim or not. It is submitted that the respondents ought to have considered the NCC category reservation in favour of the petitioner and ought to have appointed him as SCT-SI (Civil) in the quota meant and reserved for NCC category. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the specific attention of this Court to all the documents filed by the petitioner including NCC certificate submitted by the petitioner.

Learned Special Government Pleader for Home, filed a counter affidavit and reiterated to the stand taken by the respondents in the Memorandum dated 05.09.2021 and submitted that the petitioner was already selected as SCT-RSI (TSSP) in 2018 recruitment notification and he is now working as a RSI (TSSP) on regular basis after undergoing Induction Training and though request has been rejected in the year 2021, the petitioner has filed the writ petition after two years thereafter and by now all the vacancies notified in 2018 notification including BC-A, NCC category are filled up by issuing selections on 12.07.2019 and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered.

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that it is not the case of the respondents that petitioner is not eligible to be considered for the post of SCT-SI (Civil) under the NCC quota, but it is their case that the petitioner has not made representation during the time granted for such clarifications and that the representation was belated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.13829 of 2022 has taken note of delay on the part of the petitioner therein in filing the writ petition and thereafter, has directed the respondents therein to issue appointment orders to the post of SCT-SI (Civil), since he was eligible for such post.

In view of the same, since it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not eligible for consideration to the post of SCT-SI (Civil) under NCC quota, this Court directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SCT-SI (Civil), if he is found to be meritorious under NCC quota. The respondents are further directed to find or create a vacancy and appoint the petitioner as SCT-SI (Civil) if necessary by creating a supernumerary post, if necessary, or converting the post which the petitioner is holding SCT-RSI (Civil) because, for the mistake committed by the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.