High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to. a)lssue an appropriate writ, order or direction, i'no re particularly in the nature of Writ of certiorari,'to cal for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 17 'o4 2025 in o.A. No. 11t2025 on the file of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunar, Hyderabad Bench, and quash the same arong with the scrutiny notices vide_No J_11-7i1(31)2022_R_lV_Union -public Service_Commission, Recruitment-.-- rV section, issued by the Respondent as arbitrary, iflegar in view of the judgement of Hon'bre Apex court in Tej prakash pathak and others Vs Rajasthan High Court. b)Direct the respondent to consider my candidature for the post of Deputy Director of Emproyment in accordance with the recruitment rures and Advertisement No. 03/2023. lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to give an order or direction to the Respondent to consider and allow the petitioner with having Roll Number (0002065) to attend interview scheduled from 2310612025 to 2710612o25 for the post of Deputy Director of Employment which is conducted by the Respondent, pending disposal of the main Writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAMESH SHANIGARAM, pARTy-tN-pERSON Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G.R.S. AKHTLESWAR REPRESENTTNG SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Writ Petition No.1648I of 2 025 ORDER: lPer t|-e Hc)n'bk) SriJustrce AbtrnantJ. Kumar Shtrutlt) Aggrieved by the order dated 17.04.2025 passed in O.A.No. 1l of 2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad (for short, ,the Tribunal), the present Writ Petition is hied.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Shanigaram, party-in-person for the petitioner and Sri G.R.S. Akhiieswar, learned counsel representing Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner/party_in person that the respondent has issrred a notihcation uide Advertisement No.3 of 2023, dated, 11.O2.2023 for the post of Deputy Director of Employment in Directorate General of Employment, Ministry of Labour and Employment. The petitioner has responded to the said notification and contended that he is eligible and qualified to be appointed for the said post and he is a member belonging to the Scheduled 2 AKS,J & ETD,J \ wp 16-181 2025 Caste community. In all, vacancies of Deputy Director of Employment were noLified and one vacancy was ear marked for S.C. candidates. As per the said notification' one must possess a Master's Degree in Economics or Statistics or Mathematics or Commerce or Psychologr Sociologr or Social Work or Public Administration or Business Institute, Administration from a recognized University or besides one must possess five (5) years of experience 1S having requisite educational Admittedly, the Petitioner qualification. 4, The grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the said notification. the respondent has selected a person with over 13 years of experience, ignoring the fact that one must have a minimum of five (5) years of experience Even though the petitioner is having requisite quallfication and experience as set out in the notification, he was not short listed for the interview. The petitioner had further contended that the respondent ought to'have short listed the petitioner for the next stage of selection. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent in not short listing the petitioner for the next stage of selection, hc has approached the Tribunal by filing 3 AKS,J & ETD,J wp 16481 2025 O.A.No. 11 of 2025 and the Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A uid-e orcler, dared 17.O4.2025, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The petitioner/ party in-person had further contended that the interview is scheduled ro be held on 23.06.2025. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ petition by setting aside the order, dated lT.O4.2O2S passed in O.A.No.11 of 2025 by tl-re Tribunal and further direct the respondent to permit the petitioner to participate in the next stage of selection i.e., for intervlew and let the respondent consider his case for appointment to the post of Deputy Director of Employment based upon his performance in the interview.

5. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India had cor-rtended that the candidates with more experience were short listed. as against one S.C. vacancy. In total, l6 candidates beionging to S.C. community were short liste-d based upon their years of experience. Though the notification has indicated a minimum experience of Iive years, it does not mean that all the candidates who possess minimum experience and qualification are entitled for selection. On scrutiny of several applications, the \-rE '-'.i I AKS..I & ETD,J NP 16+8 t 2025 respondent has short listed the persons wlth more experience ancl the petitioner is not coming within the zone of consideratton for being short listed for next stage Hence' the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the O A' Therefore, there are no merits in the said Writ Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed-

6. This Court, having considered the submissions made by both the parties, is of the view that though the petitioner/ party-in person is having the requisite qualihcation as set out in the notification, including experience that does not mean that he should be short listed for next stage of selection i-e., for interview and the petitioner has to compete among S.C. candidates A perusal of the record discloses that the respondent has short listed the candidates for the next stage of selection based upon their length of experience, as admittedly, the persons who are having more experience than the petitioner were short listed' It is not the case of the petitioner that persons who do not possess more than five years of experience were short listed' Admittedly, all the candidates who were short listed possess more than 13 years of experience- Hence, the Tribunal has 5 AKS,J & ETI],J wP 164A\ 2025 rightly interfered and dismissed the case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. 7 . With the above observations, the Writ petition is dismissed. No-order as to costs 8 As a scquel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDI A. SRINIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR A SECTION OFFICER INDTAIoPUCI

1. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SO 2. One CC to SRl. RAMESH SHANIGARAM, PARTY-IN-PERSON [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BM GJP ITOR GENERAL OF To, f t ,i I I I I HIGH COURT DATED:1710612025 \ ORDER WP.No.16481 of 2025 ,z: r';--'' thc r,.. :\.- 11 SEP zffi ot- ':-, {. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lq0l