High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a.Writ' Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the impugned action of the respondents in applying G.O.Ms.No.23 dl 2610512011' to the selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) notified in subject notification No 2/CGSA(Adm lS andERP)/201Sdt23logt2ol5andconsequentlyfillingupthepostsliabletobe filled up with PH(OH Category)' with VH and HH category in contravention of the decisions of lnterdepartmental committee dt 26tOBt2OO3 and further action in denying selection and appointment of the petitioner' by not following Rule of Reservation meant for pH category specified under Rure 22 of rs state and Subordinate Service Rules as illegal' arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of Constitution of lndia' apart from contrary to the State and Subordinate Servic,: Rules consequenfly direct the responden,s to appoint the petitioner, on bas si of his merit marks under PH(OH) crtegory viith atl consequential benelits on p ar with the candidates appointed in p trsuance subject recruitment notificatrc,n No. 2/CGSA(Adm tS and ERp)/2 O1S dt TtOSt2O15, in the interest of Justice. (Prayer is amended as per C.O.Dt. O2lOBl2O23 in I.A.No. 02 <tf 2022 t.A.NO: 1 0F 2016 (WPMP .NO :7181 OF 2016 Petition Under Section 151 CpC praying that in the circums tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma,., be pleased to direct the 2nd respcndent not to publish the final list of apDointments and consider the petition,:r candidature for the post of Assistant Eng ineer/ Electrical (Physical Handicapprxj category) and to keep one post vacant por;t till disposal of the present writ petitior-r, pending disposal of the main writ petition LA.NO:1 oF 2022 Petition Under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired rn {i'pport of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the respondents not to fi, up one post of Assistant Engin.er (Erectricar), under PH category which remained vacant pursuant to subje ct recruitment notification dt 231 Og I 2(t 1 S. l.A.NO:1 oF 2023 Petition under Se:ction '15'l CPC praying that in the circumstu nces stated in the affidavit fired in srcport of the petition, the High court may re preased to direct the respondents not to fi, up one post of Assistant Engine;r (Erectricar), under PH category. nr'tified in notification No.0212015, dt 23.09.i015. pending disposal of the present writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI G.V.SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondents : SMT K.UDAYA SRI The Court made the following ORDER i ,, TION,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. s652 0F 2016 o RDER: etitioncr claims to be an Engineering graduate i e' Bache rlor of Technology (Electrical) and belongs to Economically Weaker Schcme (EWS) and suffers from orthopedic disability lt is stated, the 2^o respondent - TS GtrNCO issued notification dated 23.09.2015, notifying posts of Assistant Engineer in and Civil Enginecrtng Elcctrical, Mechanical, Electronlc 413 vacancies have been branches. As Per the notihcation' notified for general recruitment' while six vacancies are under Iimitedrecruitmentandthepostshavebeenclassifiedinto Zone-l and Zone 1l prescribing 4Oo/c' for combined locals and non-locals and 6OVn for locals only' It is stated' petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (trlectrical) under Physicallyhandicapped category for the post in Zone-l ' Though he securcd 66 marks in the merit list, he was not called for certificate verifrcation but the2.drespondenthadcalledsixcandidates,outofwhomonly two got more marks than petitioner and four got lesser marks- All through, the posts in the erstwhile APSEB and after bifurcation an<l lbrmation of AP GENCO' reservadon meant for 2 physicall.y chr llenged category is applied up to 3zo :rncr further, in view of the haza rdor_ls nature of job and duties atti rched to the posts in the (]enera[ion Corporation, in t]re earlier no[ifications, :rll thc posts meant for physicall.rr_ch tllenged . category up tc, 37c, have becn filled rvith candidate: under Ort hopedic; r liv I rlr nd ica pped ca regorl, on ly. It s; also staled, in vicw of the decision oI tlte Inter Departmental ltommittec lor interchange of categorres in the earlier recrurtrt--nt notific:rtion issued uide Notification No. 5, dated 14. 1,2.2011, for the same post of Assistant trngin:er, all the posts are fill,:cl up u.ith orthopedically handicappgcl ciLtegory only uide G.O.l).No. 14, dated Og.O4.2O12, hou,ever, in the present recruitrnent, respondents while filling up the p()sts at the s[age of final sclcction, denied appointment to peti _ioner, though vacancir_.s are available under physically-handic apped category st:rting that as per the Rure of Reservarron and r oster, roster points No lO6, 131 against which petitioner is eiigible to be considerecl ar o meant for visually handicapped and hraring impaired rcspec tivery. As petitioner was not sercctccr and candidates rvith lesser marks r,r,ere selected and appo nted, petitioner filecl tl is Writ pe tition initially questioning t.he a ction of respo'dents ir selecting candidates with lesser marks i r the J e piace of petitioner' br-rt' as respondents counter thaL lesser marks candidates caLegories *tt" ^ppo'lt"a' ^pprvitg have stated in the belong to VH and HH G o'Ms No 23' daLed petidoner n"U *U* out l'A'No 2 of 2022::: of prayer challenging the action of respondents 26-05'2011' ': to the amendment applying the said G O' to the selection and appointment post of Assistant' Engineer (Electricai) in subject notification' The said ApplicaLron was allowed uide ordet darcd O2'O8'2O23' In view o[ the same' appiication of G'O'Ms No 26.05.2011 to the posts under PH category notified in the present notification is under challenge' According to petitioner' notirrcation does not specify anJnvhere about application o[ C.o.Ms.No 23 to the posts notil'ied therein' O"t]O "' 4 . Heard Sri G V' Shivaji' learned counsel for Sri G. Vidya Sagar,.learned Senior Counsel . Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for petitioncr as well as on behalf of Smt' K respondents The point to be decided in this Writ Petition is 5. whether G.O.Ms.No. 23, dated 26.O5.2011 applies to the notified posts under notification dated 23.09.201.5.

6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that as per the subject notification, respondents while filling up 4 ' 'ha'e denied . ^,,,...uur,1- catesorv' t' ;,;;.,::':.: 'on and roster, roster points of finar serecri r' though ,'a.ar,.r. the posts it appoinrmen t to peti under physico,y rrr,-r,t the Rure o, :1* 1c 6, I 3 1 against which cetitioner claims to be eligibie for consid:ration are meant for. visually-handicappecl and hearing_inr paired respectivel-v. Bu t, the notification does not specifv anr.where about applicatior of G.O_Ms.No. 23 issued by Governm,rnt of Andhra pradesh For the first time, in the counter affu lavit, respondents har,e been giving earmarking of vacancic,; visually-handicappred and hearing-handicapped categories. perusal of the stid G.O. makes it clear that r[ contairrs restrictive clause trr para 7 that when any clepartment consiCers that it is not pos;s;ible to pror.ide rcscrvation lbr an.,,, ef ths category of persons \4rith djsabilfies, keeping in vjew tht: na,ure A a of duties to be per.irrmed by thc emplor ees in that particuli.rly department, the deprartment may seek pzrrtial or full exernpt ion from such reserva t ion ar-rd further such exemption shall be decided by the rnter Departmental Committee. The s id committee has alrcrrdv decided to give partial exemption to ;kre application of rel;rlrvation in favour of PH categories' ide : ::: decision ---".::;:^: J::ffi: :": .::: :T ", WaS Colnfnunl!'''-'' _ ,-7/ ) 5 hken bY the 1S On Committee dated 16 08 2003 Along with the said memo, a coPY of the dectsrons Inter DePartmental communicated ln the decision to Secretary to Government' EnergY Departmenl' was requested for exemption for recruittng blind and deaf Persons' However, AP GENCO has agreed for hlling up of 37o vacancies with orthopaedically-handicapped' the contrary, respondents in their counter contended that the said Memo dated 05'02 2OO4 and decision taken by Inter Departmental Commrttee' were not adopted by TS GtrNCO' In this regard, it is relevant to note that under Section 1O I oi the A.P. Reorganization Act' 2014' uniess and until amendment / modification is done within two years from appointed day i'e' 02.06.2ol4,al, provisions of law applicable as on that day shall be applicable to Telangana State' In fact' TS GENCO in its order dated TGOO No 202' dated 27 'O8 2015' categorically adopted all circulars / decisrons taken by AP GENCO as on that day' iurther' it is also to be noted that the post of 7. Assistant Engineer is classihed under APSEB Engineering Service as per the approved Service Regulations and it requires technical qualification of B'Tech/ Bachelor of Engineering in particular discipline Moreover' the nature of duties and functionsofthepostofAssistanttrngineerarepurelytechnical, I I ( { up with be very hazardous, thercforc, the said posts cannot be fllk_,c hearing impairecl or vision disability, else it u,orrld dangerous pirticularly in the generating corporatron; earlier recru itment also, (Mechanical zL;rd Electrical In the the posts of Assistarnt Engineer disciplines) r.ve re filleci up r,nlv with Orthopedic IIar-rdicapped candidates. Even in the present recrultment, tLLere is no earmarking of vacancies tbr VH and HH categories, hc u,ever., respondents allottccl the posts Itr such categories rvhich is contrary to law. For the above r.easr ns, this Court is of the vicr,i, that Writ petilion dcserves to be erllorred. 8. The Writ petition is accordingl.y, erllor.r,ccl, d irecting respondents tc appoint pctitioner on the basis of. mcrit marks under PH (OH) category with all consequr:ntial benclits on par with the candi<tates appointed pursuant to snbject r_ecn itment notification datttl 23.O9.2015. No costs.

9. Cor s;equently, mlscellaneous Applicatio r-rs. if any shall stand clos(.( {. That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above. Witness the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice SUJOY pAUL, on this; Wednesday, the Twenty Six day of March, Two Thousand and Twenty five. To //TRUE COPYII SD/- T. TIRIJMALA DEVI DEPUTY REGIZRAR o/v' SECTII]N OFFICER Buildings, State o1 felangana at Hyderabad.

1. The Principal sec-etary, Erectricity Department (TSGENCo) sec -etariat 2. The chairman an(r fi/lanaging Director, Terangana state power c eneral 3. One CC to SRI G.V'.SHIVAJI, Advocate tOpUCl 4. One CC to Slr/T K.UDAYA SRt, Advocate tOpLjCl 5. Two CD Copies Corporation Ltd., \/ dyut Soudha, HyderabaO 500 0BZ. SA GJP * T:%Wrre, HIGH COURT DATED:26tOgtZO2s I I .,F O) kJ d. o '.L ( 1EL4 o G *l '/ =& *$ COs .( .t ORDER WP.No.5652 of 2016 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS.