Ble High Court · 2025

Petition under section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumrstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dtd. 16-02-2024 and to issue appointment orders to the petitioner for the post of office Subordinate in the reft over vacancies of 14 in the 3rd respcndent district court in pursuance of the Notification No.6/2023 , dtd.O2.O1 .2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU counsel for the Respondent No.i: Gp FoR LAw LEGTSLATTVE AFFAiRS counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: Ms. VEDULA CHTTHRALEKHA, SC FOR TSHC The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSI{Y AND THE HON'B LE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.1 4738 0F 20/24 ORDER: @er Hoflbte SiJustice P.sam Koshy) Heard Mr.Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for the petitioner ald Ms.Vedula Chithralekha, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court of Telangana appearing for the respondents' Perused the material available on record. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent Nos'2 & 3 for hlling up the post of Offrce Sub-Ordinate in the Medchal Malkaj giri District' 3. The substantive grievance of the petitioner seems to be that having cleared the examination; the respondents had called the petitioner for interview and for documents verification; thereafter the petitioner was not either disclosed of ttre recruitment nor was a-ny order of appointment was issued. 4. Ad.rnittedly, the post for which the petitioner had applied was that of offrce Sub-ordinate against the non-local category. Total number of posts reserved for the non-loca'l category candidates were 05 in the 1OO roster. Five posts were reserved for those which are the \ most meritorious caldidates which include candidate s from a]l categories be it lor:zil as also non-local.

5. On the previous date of hearing i.e., 2O.O3.2O25, in ordef to ascertain the malks that the petitioner has scored a::rd also to ascertain whether any appointment have been granl ed in the non-local categor], Lo a person who has scored less than thr: petitioner, we had directed the 2.d respondent to make available the results. We had received the results in a sea,led envelope from thr: Registrar Recruitment which was opened during the course of the proceedings and upon perusal cf the same we hnd ttrat the petitioner has scored

26.33 marks.

6. In the said c:ircumstances, all that was left for thr.: Bench to consider whether tJre petitioner who had otherwise adrnitte dly applied under the non-local category could had been accommodal.ed against local category considering his score i.e., 26.33 marks. .arry 7 . Admittedly, the non-loca,l category posts were ont r frve (O5) which could go to r-he most meritorious candidates so far a.s score is concerned.

8. Upon perusal of the list of selected candidates and ttreir marks, we find that there has been more than 28 ggrsons who lrad scored more tharl the petitroner in the open category, all of which, even if the female candidates u,ho had scored more are rernoved, even rhen, there .\ l' "- I I arc 23 candidates who have scored more than what the petitionet has Scored. Further more, what is reflected is that five (05) candidates who have been otherwise found suitable, all have scored either 37 or more than 37 marks. g. In the said circumstarces, the petitioner having been left out from his candidature as an open category, the petitioner should not have the grievance as there a-re no caldidates who have scored less than the petitioner who had been considered for appointment in the open category 10. The whole dispute seems to have arisen after the concerned authorities found the petitioner suitable for appointment in the BC-B category and that too under the local category' Admittedly' the petitioner was not a local category candidate for Medchal Malkaj giri District. The petitioner seems to be a local resident of JayashankarT'Etupdtapalli, Warangal, thereby the petitioner under no circumstances could have got appointment as a local candidate in Medchal Malkajgiri District. 11. when ttre aforesaid mistake was detected by the authorities, fresh list was issued and in the process, the petitioner was left out from considered as a local candidate and on account of the petitioner having scored less in the open category, he could not be considered against the open category as well under the non-Iocal category'

12. In view of the same, we do not find any strong case made out calling for interference to the select list or for that matt{)r issuance of any sort of writ to the respondents. The writ petitior. fails and is accordingly rejected. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPYII SD/.T.TIRUMALA DEVI GISTRAR OFFICER

1. One CC to SRt PRABHAKAR CHIKKUDU, 2. One CC to Ms. VEDULA CHITHRALEKHA 3. Two CCs to Gp FOR LAW LEGTS ofTetangana at Hyoerioio io-J1" Advocate tOpUCl sc FOR TSHC IOPUC] LATIVE AFFA|RS, High Court for the State

4. Two CD Cooies BSR LS t '1 I l HIGH COURT I DATED: 2610312025 1HE s 14 r4- 10fi Y s ( ?w5 i ORDER WP.No.14738 of 2024 REJECTING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS