High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or an order more particurarry one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not notifying my candidature in the finally selected list announced through proceedings in R.C No'9/2019 ' Rc, Dt'13ro4/2022 is who,y arbitrary and iregar and consequenry direct the 2nd respondent to consider my case if I am otherwise eligible. IA NO: 10F 2022 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 preased to reserve one post of Office Subordinate in Karimnagar Dislrict. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! i I i Counsel for the petitioner: SRt S. SHARAT KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cp FOR GENERAL ADM|NISTRATION Counset for the Responr"", r".r, ,E,r[?Illiry PAVAN KUMAR, The Court made the following: ORDER THE IION'BLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAI\{ KOSTIY AIYD THE IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA WRJT PETTTION No.20616 of 2022 ORI)DER:/pe, gon'bte Sri Jusrice P.SAM KOSHY) This writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief: "For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit this Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ, direction or an order more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2 respondent in not notifling my candidature in the Jinally selected list announced through proceedings in R.C.No.9/2019-RC. Dt 13 04 2022 is wholly arbitrary and illegal and consequentlv, direct the 2"d respondent to consider my case if I am otherwise eligible and pass such other ttrders """'

2. The petitioner have applied for the post o[ officer subordinate in the Telangana Judicial Ministerial service, in the notilication that was pubtished on 31.07.2019. The notification specifically prescribed the lollowing as the qualifrcatio,ns and the age limit prescribed. Apart from the i' aforesaid conditions, the notification also had described the method of recruitment etc., It appears that the petitioner though had applied was permitted to participate in the recruitrnent process and his name was also lound in the select list at the first instance. However, subsequently it was found that the petitioner on the date of application had crossed the upper I I I i I I i l 2 age limit prescribed in the said notification. perusal of the age limit prescribed in the notification would clearly show that the upper age limit for participating in the recruitment process was 34 years and reraxation of 5 years would be given to the candidates belonging to the reserved category i.e., for Scheduled Casted, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes (for short SC, ST & BC) which would take the upper age limit up to 39 years. 3. The petitioner berongs to the BC community and as such he was entitled for a relaxation o[ five years i.e., he could apply in the said recruitment process subject to his having not crossed the age of34 + 5 years i.e., 39 years and the cutoff date for determining the age was the l,r of July 20 l 9 0n which date the said notification was published i.e., on 0l .07.20 l g. 4. [t is relevant at this juncture to take note of the conGnts of the paragraph No.8 of the writ affidavit itself, whereby the petitioner has himserf admitted the fact rhat on the date of application he was 3g years and 06 months, which clearly depicts the petitioner to have crossed the upper age lirnit even after the relaxation of 05 years is granted to him. 5. The 2"d respondenr has fited a counter as early as on 17.02.2023. In the said counter, it has been reflected that since the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit prescribed under thg_ nOtification or for that matter the 3 petitioner being over age in terms of the age limit prescribed in the notification, he was not found eligible for further recruitment process'

6. No reply to that said counter has been filed by the petitioner'

7. The respondents have already vide Notificatiur dated 13.04.2022 have disclosedthenamesofalltheselectedcandidatesandthepetitionerdoes not find place in the said selected list which has lead to the filing ol the instant writ petition in the year 2022.

8. We are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition for more than one reason; Firstly, the notification prescribing the upper age limit was not challenged at any point of time by the petitioner' The notification so t'ar as prescribing the age limit is concemed, was very specific with the upper age limit being 34 and with five years of relaxation to the reserved category candidates belonging to the SC, ST and BC category' With age relaxation the maximum age which a candidate was eligible to apply was 39 years' The claim for a relaxation of 10 years as has been claimed by the petitioner was not subjected to challenge at any point of time at the time of pubtication of notification or during the period when the recruitrnent process was undergoing. The petitioner having participated in thc recruitment process now cannot be permitted to challenge the sarnc atier being declared disqualified in terms of the limits prescribed under the 4 notification itself. Secondly, we are also now at this juncture not inclined for the reason that the selected candidates in due course of time must have resumed their office and the vacancies must have all been filled up. None of these selected candidates or the persons who have been appointed have been made a party. In the event of allowing of the writ petition, it could be detrimental to any of those selected candidates which again would not be permissible at this belated stage

9. For all these reasons we are not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition, the same is accordingly rejected As a sequel, mlscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVITHA / ANT REGISTRAR ,/ ECTION OFFICER Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUTI

1. One CC to Sri S_ Sharat Kumar, Advocate tOpUCl 2. Two CCs to GP forGeneral Administration, High 6urt forthe State of 3. One CC to Sri Kowturu Pavan Kumar, SC folTSHC[OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies TJ ( to,- GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0410212025 ORDER WP.No.20616 of 2022 I I L^ oi( trrE S f,q ,'q: ( aJ3, lo,ruu 2925 * oFsr,,tTa u .. ^'.,y' REJECT!NG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ?ru -2{(s -1 2)