High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA TION NO:1 0086 OF 2017 WRIT PETI Between: K.Sanqeetha, (Regl EmPloYed Youth, R,?5?llR?,'l8-l?93,1113,1,?,i?11'f'%1i'*-ffi ; AND 1 2 u:,:Eli,illfi l1l33ls; $B?#iI,i5: :iHLTs6"317 Leve I P o I i ce R e cru itm l?? 35ll#31;J "JiE3fl :3'-Yi: Home DePartment' ent Board' 0/0, the ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution"of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in ;"':H;";ii'"0- ""1:xll;l["[tx,f',#i. I:1":: iE: ::ffi ff W; ""?'^f:'r':ffi Ll[;*'ffi"r' ?il; "i#ii-oi,n " resp o n d e n ts i n n ot Stipendiarv Cadet Trainee (SCT) selecting the petitioner n"'5it i"r"tt.r"-f"i1 "r ocai catesorv in the police ;;h;'';;;g;iv unoer the ' p"t"nt to the Notification' Vide Police Constable (AR) "' deoartment of uyo""ulo'"'o-ilinJt Rc No .r51lRect lnomn ,zfiis ,.""'j'r"r"ailg ine candidates who got resser marks than the petitioner herein in the said category is highly illegal' arbitrary and unjustified, with a directton io tn" r."tponAenG to-appoint the petitioner heretn lor (SCTI Potice Constable (AR) or other the post of Stipendrary C'i"i fi'i*" of Hyderabad District category Under the Lo"ur nursuant to the Notiticat'""*, Viu Rc No 1Sl/Rect / Admn l/2015 as they got 'hrgher marks than the selected candidates' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI in tn" nol'99 lepartment "]L-goiy ,l Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER HON'Bt.E SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPTTKA l[{ RITP ETITI oN No 1008 of 20 7"7 ORDER: 'rhis writ petition is filed seeking a lVrit of Mandarnus :eclaring the action of the responder.rt; in not selecting th3 petitioner for the post of Stipencliar,,, Cadet Trainee (Si(.-r) police Constable (AR), under th _" local Scheduled (laste (Women) category In H yd _" "a bad District, pursuant AIc til ic:ation Rc.No.1li1lFl:ct./Admn. I/2015, dated 37.72.2itt5, as illegal, a-bitr,l.y and violative of Articles 14 and I6 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to clire< t the respondents lrr consider and appoint the petitiorrer rc the said post

2. Th: c:,ase of the petitioner, in brief, is tt.ta. she belongs to tlrr: Scheduled Caste community and had applied for thr posts of SCT police Constable (Civil) rf,ost Code 21) anct SICT police Constable (AR) (post (.cr1<, 22) under the ll yderabad local category. The petitioner claims t<t l^it're passed the requisite examirlal ions' 2 -.- including the Preliminary Written Test' Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and secured 83 marks under Post Code 21 and 96.50 marks under Post Code 22'

3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that, desPite than several selected candidates securing more marks under the SC (Women - Local) category for Post Code 22, she was not considered for selection' It is further alleged that the respondents erroneously treated the petitioner as a non-local to Hyderabad District, though Hyderabad and she studied from Bth to 1Oth class in The Petitioner passed her SSC examination therein' contends that such treatment is contrary to the Presidential Order and has led to her wrongful exclusion from the selection list'

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissionsonthelinesofwritaffidavit,herelieson Rahimunnisa Begum v. Acharya N. G' Ranga Agricultural University at paragraph Nos.15, 16 & 17 which reads as follows: ( J "1!;. As could be seen, para 7 wht<:h oeat:; ,arith determination oi locat ,unJiriut, irr retalion to a local area is in two pa*r. tt is aps.,arent that sub_para 2(2) of iuiu--) i, a,cpli,:a ble only where a candidate is not regartled as a local candidate under sub_ p,zra ,1) in relation to the local area in r(tspect of which the post is notified for re'crtr,innent. Sub_para (1) of para 7 is again in tvrc parts. Whereas ihe first pui -oZZrc w,'th Lhe cases where a ' iiriiu,, educ,a,ticnal qualification is prescribte,d 7or recrL)itrlent to the post, the second patrt de'als vrith the cases where no .iiii,,,r, eGucdtional qualification is prescribtei:i'ic,,. re:ruit:1lent to the post. Since a minimurrt eoucattonal qualification is prescribed in th= notifice tion dated 27.9.2010 for the pists 12tlftecr, .the.second part i.e. eara Z6t,tiij i; nol aplttig6fls. 16 O:rning to para 7(1)(a) as per tne crirerier taid down therein, a ;andid;te si;,)lt be reqerded as a tocat candidate in- rituiiiin to a tc,r:al area if he has studied ii ), edLtcatiolal institution in such local area f<tr a perictd of not less than four consecutiv.e acadentic years preceding the relevant Qualifyirq examination. In a case where a canCidct r has not studied in any educatic,nal institution during the whole ctr any pa,.. of the specified four years periocl, then ttre residence test has to be applied and it 1as to be seen whether the said candidette has resided in that local area far a per,ioc' of not /ess than four years precedir.(t the date of commencement of the qualifying examination in which he appearel. Thus, it is clear that whereas the crite,ria lzid down in Para Z(1)(a)(i) is based on the locality in which the candidate i 4 . " "' 'eS?'d':o^ o,e u' u, r' p rosecuted . n is -sty!13;,,!"[ rio" l,' !' 7!"2 co nsecu Lt u e q i uiirv,rg ' period of four 'precedins ll" ,,'^ii"'rZ'ii ao*i in Para ali" examination: th," !11aoi'ili,i"ir" of the 7(1)(a)(ii) lt out"!,^i.i,u,ri-l"iiia or rour candidate for a mrnt i) it ii- t P"cified thereu nde r' 17. We may also add that having *' I l, ;' X ri,' li,L ioi" t "i' ;tZX ; :,:, W',*;#W'r,'r;'ir Gken as - th:. i"l'i{",iotiriJi- in' tnb examination f2r,t2e 'r7i.r;lo ro, the ,'':':',::-, .]naiaite notificailon dated . Durxose of dedrmrning the local candidat' 'under Para 7" Learned counsel for respondents basing on counter affidavit filed by the resPondents submits that the petitioner was considered as a local to Ranga Reddy District based on her own admission in the online 4th to 7th class in Ranga apPlication that she studied from contend that she failed ReddY District' The resPondents to produce bonafide certificates for the said period and hence was treated as non-local to Hyderabad' It is also contended that she did not meet the cut-off marks for Ranga ReddY District and was either HYderabad or for selection. The resPondents therefore not eligible 5 5 further subrtit that the reservation for women u nc er post Code 22 is limited to 10% and has been c<:,rrecUy implemt:ntecr as per G.o. Ms. No. g6, dated 31. 12...ar)75. 6. U;ron r perusal of the record and rival subr.il,;sions, it may b'e no1:ed that as per the presidentiar orderr, the local carrdiclature is determined by the place of study during U- e Ib I r consecutive academic years imrnec iately precedingl thr: year of passing SSC. The petitionetr pal;sed SSC from a :;,:rool in Hyderabad and submitted bonafide certificates frcrn Brh to 1Oth class in Hyderabad. Thus, she qualifies as a local candidate of Hyderabad. Ihe contentior of :re respondents that she failed to submit bonafide (:ertjfiilates for 4th to 7th class and thr:rerflre must be trel,ated as non_local, cannot overrrde l.he statutory rlrit€]r.ia under the presidential Order. ln the absence ol, c,:rr..radictory evidence, the presumptior of local candirJatLl 1) to the district of SSC completion n.r-rst prevail. Furthe .rnore, the petitioner has placed on record a comparative :;tatement of marks showing that she l.r;rd secured., more rrarks than at least one or more selectr:d 6 candidates under the SC (Women - Local) category' The respondents have not satisfactorily explained this discrepancy. If eligible candidates with lesser marks were selected while the petitioner' despite higher merit' was excluded on a flawed classification' such action must be held as arbitrary and violative of Articles t4 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court also takes note of the submission made 7 by the Petitioner that several vacancles notified under Post Code 22 remained unfilled' If so' the petitioner' being otherwise eligible and meritorious' ought to have been accommodated' In view of the above' this Court is of the 8. considered opinion that the action of the respondents in treating the petitioner as a non-local to Hyderabad and thereby denying her selection under the local SC (Women) category is illegal' arbitrary' and in violation of constitutional and statutory provisions' 7

9. Accor,lingly, the Writ petition is alloi,ueJ, The respondenis are directed to consider the petitionr:)r. as a local candirJate to Hyderabad District and re,rir:vr her eligibilitv f.- :;election to the post of SCT police Cl,crrsrtable (AR) unCer :ost Code 22, L ocal) category, in accordance with law and the merit pcsition. The said ex,3rcise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weell:; from the date of receipt of a cop,/ of this order. Nc co:;_:;. tn the SC (Womerr pendinc miscellaneous applications, if an y, r;hall stand clor;ed. That Rule Nisi has nnade Absolute as above wit,Iess Witness THE HoN'Eil-r: AcflNG cHrEF JUSTTCE suJoy pAUr-, Fridray, The Twenty Seventh Day c,f December Two fnousanJana Twenty i,o,li -,' "'- //TRUE copy/, sD{- sMr. \ DEPLIT) t, To, 1 2 3 4 19n1e o.eogrlT"nt s".,qt]rir,'r:::: JP E111:irl:,j(( retary tne litate ,)t t.,lrngana. Hyderabad_500 022. V The Charrrran - l:lengana State Level police Recruitment Eoarr urrector GoneTi) )f Police. Hyderabad. One CC to Srr I r adesh Nardyan_Sanghi, Advocate tOpUC l Iy:^9^C.r-1,.f [).f :r Home, Hign Courr"foi tre Stiie-oilerargan Hyoerabad l()U l

5. Two CD Copies ?A- TJ SS ,\ PRATHIMA , ITEGISTRAR ION OFFICER s Secretariat, r, 0/0, the ,1, at I HIGH COURT DATED:20101lt202S ORDER WP.No.10086 of 2011 al '-7 ,)( rF- "{i A' ,) 03litt i15 z P "<g ,5 rr,1 i ''\( I :, ? ALLOWING TI{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COIJTS 1o\' r