The High Court · 2025

Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Orders dated: 12lOGt2O24 and dismiss the writ petition insofar as this respondent is concerned lA NO: 4 OF 2024: Between: The Principal Secretary, Women Development and Child Welfare, Senior Citizens, Disabled Welfare Department, State of Telangana, Secreffiijl,r;afit3P3$o*o.*. AND 1 2 4 Masanipally Arjun, S/o tvlasanipally Vittal Aged about.26 years, Occ.. Stu!en! R/o 3-1112, Rntnergaon, Kalher Mandal Anthergaon, Sirgapur, Medak State Telanoana. Pincode.502287 Cell. 91 79897 06370 Arun heddy Kukunoori, S/o Kukunoori Narender. Reddy Aged abou1.26- years, Occ. Student R/o.13-1 3, Papannapet, Papannapet /amdalam, District- Medak' State. Telangana, Pincode.502303 Cell. 91 89191 n41]^n rroro=Nrs/pE,,oNERs The State of Telangana, General Administration Deparlment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, rep. by its Chief Secretary The Telangani Stete Public Service Commission, Prathibha Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, PIN - 500001 , represented by its Secretary I .'.NDENTS/RES'.NDENTS Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order Dt:12.06.2024 in lA.No.1 0I 2024 in W.P.No.13872 jf 202 and dismiss the WP Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. DEVARA SAMHITHA Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI S. RAHUL REDDY, SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for Respondent No. 3: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER a 3 HON,BNLE SRI IUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATTII I(AO WRIT PETITION NO .138720F 2024 ORDER: (1,,'r Hott l,l,'5ri ltrstice Suddnln (-lnlapatli l?'nt) Initially, thc above writ petition is fited by petiti:rners secking direction to the respondents herein to follow the principler; of horizontal reservatiou for special reservations i e'' persons with clisabilities without embarkirrg any roster points for them and conside'r the petitioners for appointment for the notif ication No l/ 2024 datc'cl 79.02.2024. The learned single Juclge of this Cour! aftlr hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the respondents' was p caseci to glant interim orcler z'rrlr, order dated 12.06.2024 directing the t csPorrdents ttr followtheprincipleofhorizontalreservationforspecialt.t:se'rvationi.e., persons n'ith cli;ahitities without embarking any roster J oints ior thc'm and consicler the petitioners for appointment' It is fur her submittecl that subsequcnt to the said interim order' the resfondents have announceclthert:sulton07.07.2025andtheresponderltNo.l]file'cla vacatePetitioni,irlcl.A.No.3of2o24on22.07.2024anclt]rcrcsponclent Nos.1 and 2 filed vacate petitio n on 22 09 '2024 1 he petitioners subsequently havc filed an application for amendment r:r I praver lile l.A.No.S of 202'I or-r 18.12.2024 challenging the Rules' mcle particularly' 4 Rule 22 Sub-rule (2) (b) and (e) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, Rules, 1996), which was brought into existence uide G.O.Ms.No.96 General Admir.ristration (SI:R.D) Departmerrt, dated 22.07.2019 and the petitioners sought to clcclarc the iame as unconstitu tional and also violative of the juclgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also the judgments of this Hon'ble Court. In view of the same the said writ petition is listed before us.

2. It is further submitted by the writ petitioners that in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and othersr and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht2, wherein the special reservations that of the women and othe.r persons wi th disabilities i.e. special ca tegory persons, the rule of reserva tion shall be followed horizontally and not vertically and ir1 the instant casr,, the Rulc 22(2)(b) & (e) of the Rules, 7996 are violarive of rhc above judgments and the respondents in deviation to the above two judgments, have followed the procedure under the said Rulcs, w,hich are contrary to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court statecl supra, as such prayed to declare the said rules as unconstitutional. Besides this, the petitioners relied upon the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1155 and 1,772 of 2024, wherein it is statccl that ' (2007) 8 scc 78s ' zoto (tz) scc 2o4 / 5 the Division Bench has hetd. in case of women re 'ervation' the' horizontal reservation has to be followed and petition:'rs contended that the respondents cannot deviate from the orders c I the Division Bench of this Court and implement Rule 22(2)(b)&(e) of tl c llules, 1996.

3. Per Conhn, I-he respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter- affidavit along with vacate stay application stating t rat pe'titiorrers herein have chatlenged the present Rules in G.O.N'ls.No.96 datetl

22.07.2019 on78.12.2024 z'irle l.A.No.S of 2024, bv r'r'hich clate' both the preliminary aml main examinations were concluded a rd the' present writ petition is squa relv covered by the orders passed 'ry tht: I{on'ble Division Bench of this court in w.P.No.26038 0f 2024 a rd batch dated

26.72.2024, whir:h was also cotlfirmed by the Hon'ble Su rreme Court in SpecialLeavet.lAppeat(C)No.2410of2025passedon{)3.02'2025and contended that the l)resent Petitioners also stand in sanie iooting that of the petitioners in the above case, where in the Hon',t'le the Division Bench has cak:gorically held that petitioners after laPse .f se'eral months cannot challenge the said rules and held that in ihe cases of this nature, day-to- day clelay is very important and that the said writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed rrn that ground alone. It is further submitted by the respondent Nos-1 and 2 that similarly situalecl persons with that of the petitioners in notification Yi 6 No.2/2024 dated 19.02.2024, also challenged the said notification in a batch of writ petitions i.e., W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024, flled on

02.08.2024 and 13.08.2024, respectively, and the challenge to the selechon process in the previous round failed on the ground of de.lay and the said orders were confirmed by the Hon'ble Division bench of this court and also confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court

4. It is also submitted by the respondents that the impugned notification was also subject matter in second round before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch, wherein the said rules as amended zride G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2079, were questioned and the said cases were dismissed on account of inordinate clelay ancl the respondent Nos.1 and 2, would submit that present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above cases and as such, the petitioners have not made out new grounds or differentiated their case with that of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.21239 &. 22320 oi 2024 or W.P.No.26038 oI 2024 and batch, which calls for interference of this Court.

5. The respondent No.3 also filed counter-affida vit, inter alia, stating in same lines with that of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 also contended that petitioner No.1 despite being qualified for mains examination, has not attcnded in the main examination and hence, he is ineligible to 7 participate in further Process oI recruitment as per the norLtrs stipulated in the notificatiorr No.2/2024, clated 19 02'2024 and (urtht'r' pctitioner No.2 was not sur,cessful in the examination as he could rot place the pickuplistsofarfortlreGroup-Iservicestrir/gnotificatit,rrNo,2/2024 and as Such the Petitioners having participated in the abor r'' notification cannot turn around and challenge the said Rule 22 (2)(br & (t;1 of ihe Rules, 1996, as amendecl by G.O'Ms No 96 dated 22'07 201)' rvhir:h were in force even as on the date of issuance of the impugnc'l notification and has prayetl to disrniss the present rvrit petition on he grouncl of delay and also in pursuance of thc orders passed irr W 'No 21239 of 2o24andbatchandalsotheorc{erspassedbytheDivisiorrBc'nclrofthis Hon ble Court in W.P No.26038 of 2024 and batch, dated'.''6122024'

6. We have perused the material placed on ret orcl zrnd the contentionsofthepetitionersintheafficlavitandthecoutttet:aifidavits filed by the respondents herein ancl heard the arguments of thc'learrled counsel for petitioners Mrs Samhitha Devara and Mr' S Rahul Reddy' learned Special (lovernment Pleadcr representing the resl.ondent Ntls.l and 2 (office of Aclditional Advoc-ate General) and sri l's.Raiasekhar, appearing for resPondent No.3'

7. Before going into the rival submissions, we deem it ap6,ropriate to refer certain orders passed by this Court, wherein sillr ilitr challenge t i I i \! - \ 8 was mac-lc by the petitioners therein to the notification No.2/2024 dated

79.02.2024 anc-l other notifications, for filling of the vacancies in the respondent No.3-Public Service Commission i.e., in W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 and batch, the petitioners therein prayed for setting asitle the 2"(i notification No.2/2024 dated 19.02.2024 and prayed for restoration of notification No.4/2022 dated 26.04.2022 and it was contenc-led that that issuance of notification No.2/ 2024 dated 79.02.2024 is contrary to the directiorrs of this Court in W.P.No.15811 o( 2023 dated

23.09.2023 and further direction was prayed to conduct fresh preliminarl, examination in pursuance of the notification No.4/2022 datcd 26.04.2022. The writ Court, by order dated 15.10.2024 dismissed the W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and batch by recording the following findings t "10. ....Thus, aftcr a lapse of six mont]rs from the'date of canccllation of old notificabion, the petitioners approachcd this Court w,ithout assigmng any reasons for delay, much less, day- to- dav tlelav. [f thr: petitioners in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 are reallv aggricvccl bv tht canccllation of notification No.4/2022, datcd

26.(\4.2022, through r.r,eb note dated 79.02.2024, they ought to have aprproachcd this Court and challenged the same at the earliest point of timc itself. Though the delay on the part of the petitioners app(,ars kr bc onlv six months, but, in a matter of this nature, the dav-to-dav dclav matters and further the Petitioners failed t<t cxpl;rrn cven a singlc rcason for the dclay in approaching this Court. 'Ihcrefore, on this ground alonc, this Court is not inclined to * - (l entertain W:it Petition No 21239 of 2024' without adverting to the other qrounrls raised therein "

8. Admittedlv, the order of learned single Juclge was u nsucccssful[-Y challenged tn W.A Nos 1188 and 1190 of 2O24ant{ the piv sion llench ot .ellalr(.c' u f'ol1 this Court confirrnecl the order of rvrit Court bv Placine the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v' State of Bihar3. Subsequently orders in WA No 11('0 12024 were challenged before the I{on'ble Apex Court in SI'P'(C) No Z77c)O/2074' which was disnrissecl t'irle order clated 06 12'2024 Furtlrer it is to bc noted in W.P.No.26038 of 2024 antl batch' 11-t" ;'11'35 o[ Rule 2Z (2)(a)&(b) of the Rules, 1996 was callecl in questiolr' the flon'blc Division Bench of this Court after due consi'deration of e'rrlier t'ound of litigation in W.['.Nos.21 239 of 2024 and22320 of 2024 batch' declined to entertain the rvrit petition on the ground of inordrrrate delaf in approaching the Court. It was also hetd that though thc delay on the part of the petitioners was only six months' but in mattel of this nature' day-to-day delay matters and the Petitioners have failet to explain the delay even with a single reason lhe Division Bench ol.this Court in W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch' further held that as the seler:hon questioned in saici writ petitions is same selection rt'hich becanle subject matter of chaltenge in the previous rouncl i'e'' in W P N r t'27239 of 2024 3 (2017) 4 scc 357 t ,l 10 anci batch, which was dismissed on the ground of delay of six months ln approaching this Court and noted that if lesser delay in filing previous rouncl of litigation was held to be fatal, it was not possible to holtl that a much largcr delay in filing the said batch of petitions will fade into insignificance. The Division Bench by placing reliance upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihara ancl Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of lndias held that the reliefs claimed directly which were not granted in W.P.No.158l1 of 2023 cannot be permitted to be done in directly and observing the said findings, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in was pleased to dismiss the W.P.No.26038 of 2024 and batch, vide order dated 26.72.2024.

9. Coming to the facts in the instant case, the writ petitioners , challenged Rule 22(2)((b)&(e) of the Rules, 7996 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019 and the said rules were in force as on the date of notification No.2 of 2024 dated 79.02.2024 and that though the writ petition was filed on 72.06.2024, the actual challenge to the said rules was made only on 18.12.2024 z.,lde amendment applicatiory as such the actual chailenge is made almost around 10 months from the date of notification. As such, there is an inordinate delay of challenge to the o (1987) 1 scc 378 t 1zor8y 9 scc roo { W 11 said rules and more so the relief cLaimed in the present K'rit petition rs also squarely covered by the orders passed by rl-ris Clourt in W.P.No.21239 and 22320 of 2024' dated 15'10 2024 whir:h were confirmed in W.A.Nos.1188 ancl 1190 of 2024' dated 18'1i).2024 and also confirmed by the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated in SLP.(C).No.27790 of 2024 on 6'72'2024 and also the or'lers passed in W.P.No.26038 ctf 2024Dt-2612'2024 as confirmed bv the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(C'I No.2410 of 2025'

10. It is further observed that another important asp:'ct' which is to be dealt with is, petitioner No'1 has particiPated in the rnain examination conducted in pursuance of notification Nr'2/2024 dated

79.02.2024 and the challenge is made after he was unsucr-essfu t and that the petitioner No.2 was also unsuccessful in the exainination' as he could also not find place in the pickup list for the Gro' r p-I' serwices' in view of the conditions stipulated in the Notificatio r'L and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar (supra)' has lreld that person who consciously takes part in selection process camo: thereafter turn around and ,:hallenge the method of selection an I its outcome' followingthesame,asthepetitionershaveparticipatecLintheselection process and having been unsuccessful, cannot challenlle the rules and t I l 3 t2 selections through the noLification No.2/2O24, dated 19.02.2024 and on this ground aiso, writ petition is liable to be rejected.

11. In vicw of the above findings, We, therefore hold that writ petition is clevoid of merits and the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the instant Writ Petition. The petitioners have neither substantiated their case for the reliefs sought in nor have differentiated their cases with that of the petitioners in the previous batch of cases '12. [n view of the afore stated findings the Writ Petition stands accordingly dismissed. There shall bc no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6)'-- I secttoN oFFrcER / . One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY (For His LordshiPs' Kind Perusal) AND One Fair Copy to THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO (For His Lordships' Kind Perusal) To, '1 . '1 1 L.R. Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, t\/inistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.

3. The Secretary, Telangana Advocates Associatlon Library, High Court Buildings, \ Hyderabad

4. One CC to I\4s. Devara Samhitha Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES lll ,High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT] 6. Two CCs to Sri S. Rahul Reddy, Special Government Pleader ,High Court forthe 7. One CC to Sri?. S. Ra;as'etnar, Advocate (OPUC) 8. Two CD Copies State of Telangana. [OUTI IVBC GJP t'"8+' .' HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 -4--:=:==: 1; tE s r' 1) {.' '/,'-:l' i'..<, !.- i lfi Sitp l0AI ', '* ORDER WP.No.13872 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS -''L- l/ t