High Court of Telangana · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT oF IVANDAT\ilus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the respondent authorities by declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not appointing and posting the petitioner as office subordinate in-spite of his successful selection in terms of the 'notification issued by the 1st respondent authority and getting finally selected vide selection notification in R.O.C. No. 6t2023, Dl.20-01-2023 and not appointing and posting him in the proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent authority in proceedings Dis. No. 11321ADMN12024, Dt. 05-03-2024 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and also against the principles of natural justibe and also against the service rules and consequently direct the respondent authorities to appoint and post the petitioner as office subordinate in the unit of Ranga Reddy District Judicial unit in terms of his final selectron as notifir--,1 lry the 1st respondent authority vide notlfioation in R.O.C. No 612023. Dt. 20 O.r 20:t3 lA NO: 1 OF 20124 Petition t-nrJr-- [jection 151 CPC praying that in the circLrmsti]nces stated in the affidavit filerl ir :;turporl of the petition, the High Court nray lte pleased to direct the respondent aL tircrtres to appoint and post the petitionerr as offi,:e subordinate in the unit of Range Reddy District Judicial unit in terms cf h s f ir al selection as notified by the 1s1 er; rondent authority vide notification in R.C C ^,1o. 6/2023, Dt. 20-01-2023 Counsel for the Pet tioner: SRI M.SALEEM Counsel for the Res grondent No.1: SMT. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA Counsel for the Res6rr:ndent No.2: GP FOR GENERAL ADMN DE\l Counsel for the Res prondent No.3: SMT. SHALINI, GP FOR SE:RVlrlES-ll The Court made, the I'crllowing: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION NO.L2t60 0F 2024 ORDER: U)er Hon'ble Srl &sttce Narslng Rao Nandikonda) This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is hled seeking to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not appointing arld posting the petitioner as an Office Subordinate in spite of his successful selection in terms of the Notification issued by respondent No.1 in R.O.C No.O6/2O23, dated 2O'11'2O23 and not appointing and posting him pursuant to the proceedings respondent No.3 issued by Dis.No.1 132IADMN /2024, dated O5.03'2024, as arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to appoint proceedings him as an Office Subordinate in Ranga Reddy District Judicial unit in terms of hnal selection list notified by respondent No' I uide Notification in R.O.C .Nto.06/2021 dated 20'lL'2023'

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.l issued Notiiication No.06 of 2023, dated O2'O|'2O23' inviting applications from the suitable caldidates for direct 2 PSI(J&NNR,J \yp t2160 2024 recruitn1e.1. to the posts of ofhce sutrordrnal e in the TelanganiL,Iudicia,l Ministerial and Subordinattr Service, Since the pt::itioner is having the requisite: qualif;cation as mentionerl ir the said notification, he appliect to the said post. He was rlreJified in the written test and ce,11ec for oral intervier r. J'hereafter, on 1g. 1O.2O23 he appeare<l for oral intervieu, ,tr)n(lucted by the respondent authorities rrrd stood qualifred 'r. is further stated that in terms o'thr. Notirrcation, dated 011. 0 1 . 2023 , I-rnal selection list of candiciate s for the post of Ofll,:e Subordinates was notified by resFronclent No.1 in R.O.o.,rtc.t of 2023, dated 20. 11.2023, .,vherein the petitioner rva s, selected for the post of Ofhce Sub,rclireate and he was allc tt.ec1 to his native unit of Ranga Re:dd1 Dir,;trict. As list uide pro ceedings selection f inal th: Dis.No.11:i 2 /.,IDMN /2024, d.ated O5.O3.2O2,[, the seiected candidates rve re allotted to various Courts in Ralgrr Reddy District. j I r,,r,ever, though the petitioner,s nar ne was 'mentionecl irr ;.he fina] selection iist issued by resi:ondent No.1, datec 20 11.2023, he was not posted in the said post till date. 3 PSK,J&NNIl"J wp t2t6o:20?4

3. It is case of the petitioner that at the time of final selection, he produced Secondar5r School Certificate apart from other certificates relating to technical courses through vocational training in skill development. It is stated that after verification of his qualification ald qualifying in the written examination, his candidature was finaiized by respondent No.1 and fina-i selection notification was issued by respondent No.1 vide notification, dated' 20.lt '2023, wherein the petitioner was selected and he was allotted to Ranga Reddy unit at S1.No.3O. He further submitted that in terms of the final list issued by respondent No ' 1 , he was issued proceedings by respondent No'3, which is against the recruitment rules arld denying the petitioner's employment after he successfully selected in the said post and which action of the respondents is against the principles of natural justice.

4. Respondent No.l Iiled counter-affidavit and it is stated that after the examination conducted by TATA Consultant Services, a-nswer sheets were evaluated and thereafter, the Rggistrar (Recruitment) prepared the list of caldidates, who secured the minimum marks, in the ratio of \ 4 PSK,J&NNRJ r\P- 12160_2024 1:3 anrl r::er led for oral interview. The p()titi )ner was provision€Jl.\, selected in Open Category for rhe pos,_ of Office Subordinz(e. liom Ranga Reddy District. It is lurtlrer stated that th.e ]).incipal District Judge, Ranga F,leddy in Dis.No.31 t,/ADMN./2024 d,ated lg.Ol.2024, :nto.med the High Cour-r .hat during verification provisiorLalll selected candidates of the eligibility of the before issu ing the appointmert :rders, they noticed that the petitio.er r.;aid to be possessed hi5jrer qualification that as he pursuec I,II Fitter 2 years Coirrse, cturing the Academic years of 2Ol4 to 2,016 a_fter S.S.C. Eia:l ng on which, respondent No.1 tre, rted the petitioner''s qrralification as higher qualihcation than the qualification p,r-escribed for the post of office sub.rclirrate. As per notifi':ati'rr , he must have passed 7th to loth c1a ss or its equivalent :xarnination. It is stated in the sa-rd notification it is stated thrrt the candidates who are ha,,ing higher qualificatiorr t:an the 10Lh class shall not be, consi<lered as eligible for th t said post. It is further stated th,r srnce the petitioner is }-Lirving higher qualification tha, the rlual ification prescribed irL the Notification, on the said grorrnd his 5 PSICJ&NNR,J wp_12160 2024 candidature was rejected and he was not given appointment order.

5. Heard Mr.M.Saleem, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Vedula Chitralekha learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt' Shalini, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il, appearing for respondent No'3'

6. Considering rival contentions of both the counsel' the point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Technical Skill i.e., ITI qualification can be treated as higher qualification or an additional qualifrcation?

7. POINT: The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner completed Fitter Course from Industrial Training Institute (ITI) from August' 2014 to July 2016. According to him, the said course is an additional technical skill and it cannot be treated as higher qualiflcation as it is related to technical qualifrcation'

8. The main contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that as the petitioner has possesses more than the required qualifrcation for the post of Ofhce Subordinate as \ I ./, ,r, 6 PSK,J&NN&J wp. 12t60_2024 mentiorre C in the Notihcation, his candidature was not conside rei 9, Fc,r the sake of convenience, it is ner:essary to reproducr' tlte qualification required for the post of Ofhce Subordinir1.t: rnentioned in the Notihcation No.O6/ 2(:2g, 6uL6 02.O7.2O21\. Ibr direct recruitment in the Te.langal rr Judicial Ministerial and Subordinate Service issued by the Registrar (Recruitm,--.r t I ..5. I)DU-CATIONAL OUAIILFICATION: a) i\{ rs har.e passed any exam between 7rh to 10,n class o its eq,-ri, alent examination- But the candidate lr, ho i; ha,rng l-ighr:r qualification than lOth class shall not trc consi,* red as e 1 6rible. b) 'th.- rqrplicarts haye to state in their online apolicarion. the crrrlessional skills they have, such as, cooking, c€rpr_It.ry, :h,rnbing, electrical and painting etc. For the purposr of p:: fo - ning duties with respect of their professional sk:llr, at llu cr:sidence s of Judicial Officers." 1O. l,ea.rned counsel for the pet_itioner further contended tlLir: the petitioner is having the equal qlt€rlification as requirr3c f:r the post of Office Subordinate, as soui,iht for in the notif; crr'-r r,;r. He further submitted thal pe trtioner was successfl.rl irL rhe written test conducted by the rer,,pondent authorities ai:lcl thereafter, he was called for oral in1,e rview on 18.lO.2otl,3 ,arLrl in t6e said oral interrriew he stoo,l slrccessful ,. 7 PSK,J&NNR,J wp 12160 024 and selected for the post of Office Subordinate' Thereafter' respondent No.1 also issued final list uide R'O'C'No'0612023, dated 20.11.2023, wherein the name of the petitioner was shown as he was selected for post Office Subordinate and a,llotted to his native unit of Ranga Reddy District' He further submitted that pursuant to the proceedings, dated 20.11.2023, respondent No.3 vide proceedings in Dis.No.1l32lAD}.irNl2O24, dated 05'03'2024 issued appointment letters to successful caldidates in various Courts of Ranga Reddy District. But, in spite the petitioner's nalne was shown in the final selection list issued by respondent No.l, he was not posted in any of the vacancies noti{ied.

11. He further submitted that the petitioner has produced his Secondar5z School Certificate apart from technical qualihcations through vocational training for skill development at the time of final selection' After verification of all the certificates produced by him, his candidature was finaJized, by respondent No.1 and a1lotted to Ranga Reddy District unit. Therefore, the action of respondent No'3 in not issuing the posting orders to the petitioner is against tJ:re \ 8 PSK,J&NNR,J \\p 12160_2024 recruitnler t rules of Office Subordinate ald :a1so depriving the right of 1 L t: petitioner to work as office siubrrrcli ^ate aJter success.lrl rieiection is against the principles c f natural justice. [-r slrpport of his contentions he also p:ace,1 reliance on the jirrlgmgnl of the Hon,ble Supreme (lourt irt parvaiz Ahmed P;rrry v. State of Jammu & Kashmir anr othersr and Chandrrr Shekhar Singh and others v. ithe State of Jharkhand and others2 L2 . i )r-r the other hand, iearned Governrnen t pieader for Services I u'ould submit that the qualifica.tion ac:luired by the petitir,rr,: r would come within the mear.rirLg t,f higher qualificaric,rr ltrr the reason that after completion of S.S.C, the petitioner corrld acquire further qualifications b1 going to Polytech.ir: c,r Engineering course. She a-rso tried to rroint out that the sair'l luarification wourd come within the def nition of higher qtrah fi.;ttion a,d that cannot be treated ers arlditional qualificatio n .

13. (to,l sidering the riva-1 contentions c,t. t,oth the parties a:rd perusa_l of the notification issued by respondent I civilAppeal No lt ,8 ,:t t( 15. dared 06 I t.20i5 CtrrlApp.il NO (S l,( I tlr (12021 o PSK"J&NNR,J wP 12160-024 No.l, it clearly shows that the required qualification for the post of Ofhce Subordinate is the candidates must have passed any examination between 7ft to lom Class or its equivalent examination. Along with Memo, dated 22'07 '2024' respondent No.1 also filed relevalt material papers pertaining to the admission process for admission into TG ITI Admission 2024 Prospectus. The educational quatihcation prescribed for admission into ITI is l0th pass/8th pass. He further contended that the petitioner got admission in the year 2Ol4 as Fitter and he passed ITI in the month of July, 2O 16' After S.S.C., he did ITI for a period of three years, which has to be treated as higher qualifrcation and hence, she prays to dismiss the writ Petition. L4. No doubt, the qualif,rcation prescribed for the post of Office Subordinate is 7th to 10th' After completion of SSC' the petitioner obtained admission in ITI for Fitter trade' which is three-year course. As seen from the notification' besides the educational qualihcation prescribed for the post of Office Subordinate in the notification, respondent No' 1 also observed that the candidates have to state professional skills carpentry, plumbing' electrical they have such as, .cooking, I : I I I I I 10 , PSK,J&NN&J \1Tr 12160 2024 parnting e1.(:. , for the purpose of performingl rlr rties with respect ot'r1€ir professional skills at the resirlen,:es ,tf Judiciai Ofhcers I $. [r is the speci{ic case of the petition,:r t, rat as per notificaticn c,nly, he placed all his certificates l refore the recruitrnent authorities stating that he poss,)ssed an additiona, 11- alification which they have sought lbr. He further statecl that the certificate relating to slter:irrl skil1 of 'Fitter'has p.-,tduced before this Court and this ()orrr t perused the samr:.

16. [J:ving gone through the certificates p1a< ed before this CouLrr, t:is bench is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is lraving professional skills out of the skilts sought for, such as r:ooking carpentry, plumbing, paintin5. etc., for performi:eg; 11 --ties with respect of their profe:ssioneil skills at the resic'le er:e s of the Judicial Offices. This means that the petitione r rc <luired a special professional s.<ill, besides passing ,rf ,:xamination of 7th to lOtr, class or it.s erluivalent examinalicr. The intention of the respondent ar rthorities would clear,lrat from the upper limb i.e., Sl.No.S of the said notificatior:, tfre respondent authorities can be tre;ated the l1 PSK,J&NNR,J wp-t2t60:)024 sarne only for the Purpose of educational qualification and when it comes to the higher qualification, the said reqrrirement shall only be professional skill, which the petitioner holds, and to show that he is having that special skill in the electrical and in any one may be taken as a additional skill by the respondent, the petitioner would come within the said definition that he is having special skill in electrical. The said notification would clearly show the intention of the respondent that the said skills which are mentioned are not exhaustive. It is not only limited to the said skills and any other skills which would be considered for the said post. This bench is of the opinion that the qualification which the petitioner acquired cal only be taken as an additional qualification being on the technical aspect artd the sarne cannot be taken as a higher qualification, thereby barring the petitioner from being considered for the post of the Office Subordinate.

17. Admittedly, the petitioner was having educational qualification of S.S.C, which is otherwise the required qualilication for .the post minus the technical qualification which the petitioner possess otherwise, the petitioner is very i I i i 12 , PSK,J&NNR,J \\p 12t60-2024 much eligjt)t(r for the said post. For the reasorr th at he was possessing the additional qualifrcation ol. I,l.I cannot be ground fc,r re.jecting the candidature of the pet: tior er for the post of Oii:e Subordinate. Besides that the in ention of submiss,ic,n : f the said certificate by the petil ionr :r can be cu1led ou:_ r lll1. the he wanted to place the sarne I>efore the recruiting z rrthority that he possessed an rdditional qualificati,rr: rvhich is sought for by the respondent,.;. As per clause 5(a) and 5(b) of the notification the petitioner possessecl rrdditional qualification, which fal1,; under professicna I s}<ills. 18" Ilrr:rsf61s, this Bench is of the oprr: ion that rejection of 1lL': petitioner for the post of Office Sr-tboldinate is not justifiaLl:. Therefore, the respondent author ities are directed t I issue appointment order to tfre :oed.ioner in appointirrg 'rin for the Office Subordinate in thr: category of BC-8.

19. l\: :his stage, it is brought to the nctrc : of this Bench tha t r here are no existing vacalcies in . .he said category i. e. . BC-B, in which the petitioner rvas seir:cted for the post of Ollice Subordinate. Since the petilion,:r is, due for l i i I I I I I I ; 1i l I I I I I I I I I 13 PSKJ&NNR,J wp t2r6olo24 the said post, which he was already selected and due to the mistake committed by the respondents his candidature was rejected. As the petitioner lost his opportunit5r to get appointment and to do substaltial justice to him, this Bench opines that his candidature shall be considered in the existing vacancies in the recruitment, which is under process. In such a case, the respondents are directed to accommodate the petitioner into the said vacancy in the category of BC-B available as on that date and issue appointment order as well as posting orders to him as Office Subordinate, in accordance with law.

20. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA AS TSTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2. J 4 5 6 7 na, Hyderabad partment, Government of The Reg istrar, (Recruitment), HiQ h Court of Tel The Prin cipal Secretary, General Administration Telang ana, Secretariat Buildings,Hyderabad The Pri ncipal District and Sessions J udge, Ranga ReddY District One CC to SRI M SALEEM, Advocate IoPUC One CC to SMT. VEDULA C HITRALEKHA, Advocate OPUC] Two CCs to GP FO R GENERA L ADMN DEV, High Cou rt for the State of Telang ana, at Hyd erabad Two CC stoGPFO Hvderabad. [OUT] Two CD CoPies R SERJ8'aE-lt, High court for the state of relangana' at 8 PSK. BS w HIGH COURI' DATED:0210412025 ORDER WP.No.121160 of 2024 / ,| 4 o t) r,9 1i JI[i a\ (f,( ALLOWING T'HE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO,STS 6 \