The High Court · 2025

3. B. Padma, D/o Sri Rajaiah Aged 36 years, Occ. Senior Assistant (Purchase) Ramagundam-1 Area, Qr.No.T2-410 l.B. Colony, Godavarikhani - 505 209 4. T. Prasanna Rani, D/o Sri T. Raja Ratnam Aged 42 years, Occ. Senior Assistant (FandA) Bhupalpally, Qr.No.MC53, Block-1 Manjumagar, Bhupalpally Jayshankar District - 506 170. ...APPELLANTS AND 1 Kashaboyina Srinivas, Department Singareni Kothagudem - 507 101 S/o Sri K. Collieries Chalamaiah Company Senior Assistant, Ltd., Corporate Welfare Office,

2. Dasari Nagaraju, S/o Sri D. Rajesham Junior Assistant, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., M Office ALP Area, Ramagundam lll Peddapalli District - 505 212

3. Sirimalle Ashok, S/o Sri Soma Narsaiah Senior Assistant, CS Dept Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Kothagudem District - 507 101 4. Adhe Madhu, S/o A. Rajalingam Senior Assistant F and A Dept., Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., GM Office, Sriramur Area, Mancherial Dist 504 303

5. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Department of Energy, Secretariat Building Hyderabad

6. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Rep by its Chairman and Managing DirectorSingareni Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 004

7. The Director (P and AW), The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate Office, Kothagudem - 507 101

8. The General Manager (Recruitment), The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Corporate Office. Kothagudem - 507 101

9. Mr: Katham Kalyan Raj Manohar, Junior Assistant, Personnel Department The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.. GM's Office, Mandamani, Mancherial District ...RESPONDENTS 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 interim stay orders granted on 03.04.2024 in l.A.No.l ot 2024 in W.A.No.244 of 2024, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI G.VIDYA SAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI SAt PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI A.G.SAryANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.5: GP FOR ENERGY Counsel for the Respondent No.6 to 8: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 944OF 2024 Writ Appeal under clause '15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order Dated 1810312024 Passed in WP.No.13570 of 2023. on the file of the High Coqrt. Between: 'l . The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director Singareni Bhavan Hyderabad 500 004.

2. The Director (P,A & W), The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Corporate Office Kothagudem 507 101

3. The General Manager Recruitment, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Corporate Office Kothagudem 507 101. ...APPELLANTS AND Z y. Aged 36 years Occ Senior Assistant (F & A). Krishna Colony, Bhupatpally Jayshankai Oistri6t 1 M Sunitha, D/o Mohan Redd Bhupalpally, Qr No T2- 211, 506 169. J_ _{nushq, D/o J Mallesham-, Aggd 30 years, Occ. Senior Assistant, GMs Office, RG-1, H No 123716t1, Gadderagadi Mancherial SO4 301 . B Padma, D/o Sri Rajaiah Aged 36 years Occ Senior Assistant purchase Hamagundam 1 Area Qr No T2410 I B Colony Godavarikhani 505 209

4. T Prasanna Rani, Assistant (FandA) Bhupalpally Jayshd D/o Sri T Raja Ratna m Aged 42 years, Bhupalpally, Qr No nkar District 506 170. MC-53 Block-1 , Occ Senior Manjumagar, ...WRIT PETITIONERS 5. Kashaboyina^.Srinivas,_ S/o sri K chalamaiah senior Assistant welfare uelartment singareni collieries company Ltd corporate office Kothagudem 507 101

6. Dasari Nagaraju_, . S/o Sri D Rajesham Junior Assistant Singareni coilieries companv Lrd GM Office ALp Area Ramagunoam tti peooaEiiti oi"triit-sds 212

7. sirimalle Ashok, s/o sri soma Narsaiah senior Assistant cs Dept Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Corporate Office Kothagudem District 507 1Oi -- - 0 4ol.'.e Madhu, S/o A Rajaringam Senior Assistant F and A Deot sinoareni collieries companv Ltd cM dffice sriramur Area Mancrreriai D[i5b4 5b5''' " 9. Katham Kq.lya-1 Raj lvranohar, Jr. Assistant, (personner Department). The rrngarenr uolrenes company Ltd., G.M. office, Mandamani, Mancherial Dist.- 50423'1 . tO J!9 Stqle of ,Telangana, ngp pV its Speciat Chief Secretary Department of E nergy Secretariat Building Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 stay the operation of order dated 18103t2024 passed by the Hon'ble court in writ Petition No. 13570 ot 2023 pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. Counsel for the Appeilants: SRI GODA SHIVA, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR SRIP.SRIHARSHA REODY, SC FOR SCCL Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4: SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent No.S to B: SRI A.G.SAWANARAYANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.9: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.10: GP FOR ENERGY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ,-&.+., -A HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SRI,IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY u4uI APPEAL Nos.244 and944 of 2024 COMMON JTIDGMENT: (per Hon ble Sri Justice Laxmilga\ry,an.r Atishett.y) Both Wlit Appeal Nos.244 and 944 of 2024 are filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by leamed single Judge of this Clourt in W.P.No. 13570 of 2023, rherefore, both the Writ Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by common .judgntent.

2. \\',A \o.1.14 ot' 2024 is filed by the candidates whose selection fbr thc post of Welfare Officer Trainee E- I Grade (lntemal) was scl aside by the leamed single Judge b1 ttre impugned order'.

3. W.A.No.944 of 2024 is filed by the employer i.e., Singareni Collieries Company Limited.

4. IJeard Sri (i.Vid),a Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri G.S.l,rasen. learned counsel on record for the appellants in W.A.No.244 ot-2024 and Sri Goda Shiva, leamed senior counsel appearing lbr Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel '\\\\ R 2 ,4 KS, J & LNA WA Nos 211 & 9't4 o12024 for Singareni Cotlieries Company Limited-appellants in W.A.No.944 of 2024 and Sri A.G.Satya Narayana Rao, leamed counsel for respondent Nos.l to 4 in both the Writ Appeals, who are the writ petitioners in the order under challenge'

5. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in W.A.No.244 of 2024'

6. In nut-shell, the facts ol the case are that respondent No.6/employer has issued Notification dated 0l '03'2023 inviting applications for filling up the vacancies of Executives and Non- Executive cadre posts through intemal candidates, which includes 1 I posts of Welfare Officer Trainee, E-1 Grade (lnternal); that last date for submission of applications was 13'03'2023; that respondent Nos. I to 4 have applied for the said post; that written examination was held on 21 .05.2023; that the appellants herein and respondent Nos.1 to 4 are qualified in the written examination; that the appellants are at Sl.Nos. 5, 22, 4 and 3 respective-ly' whereas respondent Nos. I to 4 are at St'Nos'6, 10, 138 and 232 respectively; that out of the I 1 posts of Welfare Officer Trainee' four posts are reserved for OC. one post for BC-A' one post for ) AK\.J&LNA,J hA L"5 21,1& 911 o12024 BC-C, one post lbl BC-D, one post for BC-E, two posts for SCs and one posl lor S'ls; that as per Para-lll(19) of the notification, Rule ol lteservation and the spirit of Presidential Order, 2018, as approved by the Board of Directors will be applicable for the posts; that the method ol selection is by written examination for 85% of marks and assessment of report for l5oh of marks; subsequent to publication o1' results, respondent Nos.l to 4 submitted individual representations clated 23.05.2023 to respondent No.6 lor applying the Rule o1-rcservation and as no orders were passed on the said representations, they approached this Court by liling W.P.No.l3570 ol 2023 and a learned single Judge of this Court vide intcrir.r.r order dated 25.05.2023 directed respondent No.6- Cornpanl, to consider the representations ol' respondent Nos.1 to 4 and to pass altplopriate orders in accordance with law; that in pursuance ol 1l-rc said interim orders, respondent No.6 considered the representations and rejected the request made therein, vide orders, dated 01.06.2023; that thereafter, respondent No.6- Company published the select list of the candidates, wherein the fppellant are placed at Sl.Nos.6, 10, 11 and 9 respectively, and they n 4 AKS,J & LNA IrA Nos 2,14 &944 o12024 were issued provisional offer of appointment dated 05.06.2023 and they were further directed to report on 08.06.2023 for verification of the original certificates and for medical examination; that accordingly, on 08.06.2023, after verification of the original certificates and on medical examination, the appellants were appointed to the post of Welfare Officer Trainee, vide proceedings dated 08.06.2023; that on the even date, learned single Judge passed interim orders suspending the selection of the appellants herein, who are respondent Nos.5 to 9 in the Writ Petition.

7. The said Writ Petition was allowed, vide order dated

18.03.2024, setting aside the select list dated 03.06.2023 and respondent No.6-company was directed to follow the Rule of Reservation under Rules 22 and, 22-A of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and re-draw the select list in accordance therewith; respondent No.6-company was further directed to apply the Rule of Reservation to the post of Welfare Officer Trainee and consider the candidature of respondent Nos.l to 4 in the order of their merit against roster point Nos.17, 18, 22 5 AKS J & I,NA, J l4'A ,\os 241 & 914 of1021 and 23, respectively. Challenging the said order passed by the leamed singlc .ludge. thc present Writ Appeals are filed.

8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have applied for the post, participatcd in the selection process by appearing in the written examination held on 21 .05.2023 and having found that they were not coming w ithin the zone of consideration, made individual representations to thc cmployer-Cornpany on 23.05.2023 and thercafter', approachcd this Court by filing W.P.No.13570 of 2023 alleging non-inrplenrentation of Rule 6 of Recruitment Rules and also non-considering the reservation for women in selection to the post of Welf-are Offlcer 'frainee E-l Grade (lntemal). He further contended that having pafticipated in the selection process, now, respondent Nos.I to .1 cannot tum around and challenge the method of selection. To br-rttress his submissions, Ieamed senior counsel relied upon the judgrnents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramesh Chuntlru Shah Vs. Anit Joshit, Ashok Kumar Vs. Slate of Bihal, and D.Sarojakumari Vs. R.Helen Thilakom3. ., 'zo11r r.1 scc :oo 'zot z1a; scc ::; I 6 AKS, J & I- W.Nos.244 & 911 o1202

8.1. Learned senior counsel further contended that in the notification, it is specified that the Rule of reservation as approved by the Board of Directors will be applicable for the posts advertised. He further contended that Rule 6 is in part_I of the Recruitment Rules which apply for recruitment from extemal candidates, whereas, the recruitment, as per notification dated

01.03.2023, is from rhe intemal candidates and therefore, Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules have no application to the posts notified in the notification dated 01.03.203. He further contended that in fact, Part-II of the Recruitrnent Rules, respondent No.6-Company is applicable for recruitment from intemal candidates; that Rule 27 of the Recruitment Rules specifies that Rule of reservation shall be followed in accordance with instructions of the State Government in force from time to time. Leamed senior counsel further contended that Rule-22(2)(a)(i) of the Recruitment Rules specifies that the Unit of appointment for the purpose of reservatien in the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer involving promotion shall be that for every 100 vacancies, 15 shall be reserve$or SCs and 6 for STs as per the roster points in sub_rule ' zo rz19; scc +zs 7 /1f6J&LliAJ vt.\os.211 & 944 af)024 (2)(e). Sub-rules (l), (2) and (3) ofRule 22(A) of the xxx Rules relate to direct recruitment. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22(A) of the Rules provides for u,omen reservation in the matter of promotion and appointment b ',, transt'er involving promotion to the posts for which women and mcn are equally suited and where the cadre strength of posts is more than five, there shall be reservation to women to an extent of 33 11396 in f'avour of SCs and STs and therelbre, there is no resen,ation tbr rvornen in promotion or appointment by transfer except in cases o1- SC and S'f candidates.

8.2. Learned senior counsel fol the appellants further contended that the Boalcl of Dilectors in its meeting held on 26.07.2021 passed a resolution with regard to gender relaxation in Executive cadre and Non-E,xecutive cadre and the same was circulated vide lefter dated 12.08.202 I and as per Minute No.5.27.3, by referring to the provisions o1' Section 46 of the Mines Act, 1952, it was resolved lor deploynient of women, after following the Standard Operation Procedure, in surface working mines and open cast mines between l0 pm and 6 am. T'herefore, in view of the said resolution, it u'as decided to fill up the vacancies with male or 8 AKS, J & LI\ WA.Nos.244 & 944 o12024 female as per the combined merit list order by duly following the Rule of Reservation without earmarking 33 l/3% reservation for the posts where men and women are equally not suited as per the notification and it was further resolved for deployment of women employees in the Mines as per SOPS order framed. Therefore, the decision of respondent No.6-company in not providing Rute of reservation for women is justified and reasonable in view of nature of duties to be performed by the Welfare Officer Trainee E-l Grade.

8.3. Leamed senior counsel fur1her contended that the present notification was issued for various posts and that in respect of posts, where men and women are to be treated equally, reservation was provided for women, but, there was no challenge to the notification dated 0 I .03 .2023. Leamed senior counsel further contended that the learned single Judge erroneously came to a conclusion that reservation lor women has to be applied for the post of Welfare Officer Trainee E- I Grade and also erred in directing respondent No.6-Company to follow the Rule of Reservation under Rules 22 and 22-A of the Telangana State & 9 lKS J& L\,,1,J 1Y,,1 Nos 211 & 941 o12024 Subordinate Service Rules, without appreciating the fact that Rule-22(2)(a)(ii) (.A)(BXCXD) thereol are applicable only among the SC and ST candidates and Rule 22 (A)(4) of the said Rules specifies that therc shall be reservation to women to the extent of 33 113y" to SC and Sl' candidates. He further conlended that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that Rule 6 of Recruitment Rules are applicable only lbr recruibnent among external candidates, rvhereas the notification for the post of Welfare Otficer J'raince E-l Grade is among intemal candidates and therefole. Rulc 6 o1'the Recruitment Rules has no application to the prescnt notillcation. He linally contended thal respondent Nos.l to 4 have challenged selection only after they failed to secure merit in the exarnination and that too, without challenging the notillcation dated 01 .03.2023 and therefore, Writ Appeal No.244 of 2024 deserves to be allowed

9. The contentions o1' the leamed senior counsel appearing fbr respondent No.6-Company are almost on similar lines as that of the contentions of leamed senior counsel appearing for the appellants W$No.244 <tf 2024. He further submitted that as per \ \ I \ L ..n d -tl .t ,t &.#: & .l.,,! - T l0 AKS, J & I,NA: wA Nos.214 & 914 of 2Da amendment to Secrion 46 of Mines Act, 1952 and as per the DGMS circular of 2019, women employees can be deployed in underground mines, i.e., in open cast/surface working mines during day hours from 7 am to 6 pm and in that regard, SOps are yet to be formulated. He further submitted that this particular aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned single Judge while allowing the Writ Petition. He lurther submitted that respondent No.6_ company is labour intensive organization and the employees work in most hazardous conditions in underground mines and all the employees working in the underground are male employees. He fuither submitted that Welfare Officer is a statutory post and the duties involve attending mines at odd timings, rushing to the mine spot in case of underground mine accidents, controlling the agitating workmen and mediating during strikes, etc., apart from other statutory duties and therefore, in view of the nature of duties to be discharged by the Welfare Officer, respondent No.6- Company has categorized Wetfare Officer Trainee as the post not equally suitable for both men and women. 1l ,4K5.J&LNA,J tYA Nos.)41 & 914 oJ2024

9.L Learned senior counsel further contended that pursuant to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.3, Department for Women, Children, Disabled and Seniur Citizens (Schemes), dated 10.02.2024 and G.O.Ms.No.35, (ieneral Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated

13.02.20?4, b1' the Government of Telangana, with instructions to implement horizontal women reservation and removing the word 'wornen' lrom roster point list, the competent authority fo owed the same rvhile issuing notification No. 1 of 2024 in the year 2024 to implement 33 1 3% reservation lor women lor all t].re posts in all lutr.rre lecr-uitntents including the posts ol internal employrnent. By contending thus, leamed senior counsel for.respondenl No.6 prayed this Courl to allorv W.A.No.944 of 2024.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that lespondent No.6-Company has not followed,/implernented Para-lII(19) of the notification in respect of post of Well'arc' ()lllccr l-rainee E- l Grade. He further contended that respondent No.6 is bound to foltow the said Rute, also the statutory r'ules i.e.. Rutes-22 and 22-A of the Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Scrvice Rules, which provides reservation lor women 12 AKS'J&LNA'J WA l';os 244 & 914 oI2A24 for the posts for which men and women are equally suited and further, contended that respondent No'6 is also bound to follow the Rule of Reservation both for external as well as internal candidates' He further contended that when women candidates were successful and were selected in open category to the post of Welfare Officer Trainee E-l Grade, respondent No'6 would have considered their cases for appointment and in such case' respondent No'6 cannot deny application of women reservation only on the ground that the said post is not suitable for men and women equally and consequently, deny the appointment of respondent Nos' 1 to 4 to the said post. He further contended that the leamed single Judge has rightly appreciated the said fact and allowed the Writ Petition and that no illegality or irregularity is pointed out in the impugned order of the leamed single Judge wananting interference by this Court and accordingly, prayed this Court to dismiss both the Writ Appeals. 1 1. Having considered the rival contentions of leamed counsel appearing for both the parties and on perusal of the entire material available on record, the only point that falls for consideration is r3 /1KS,J&LNA,J tY/t io.\ 2tt & 9t1of202t whether worren reserv.ation of 33 1/3 % is applicable to the post of Welt-are Officer Trainee E- I Grade? 12. The undisputed f-acrs of the case are that in pursuance of the Circular notification dated 01.03.2023 issued by respondent No.6 for various posts, which includes l1 posts of Welfare Officer Trainee E-l Grade, respondent Nos.l to 4 applied for the said post, participated in the rvritten exarnination and they were placed at Sl.Nos.6, 10. 138 and 232. respectively in the merit list. I 3. The rnain grier ance of respondent \os. I to 4 is that respondent No.6 is not fbllowing the Rule of reservation for women in accordance with Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules. 1996, as per which 33 113% reservation is to be applied for selection to the post of Wetfare Officer Trainee E_ 1 Grade. 14 Sub-rules (r), (2) and (3) or Rule 22(A) of rhe xxx Rules relate to direct recmitrnent. Sub_rule (4) of Rule 22(A) of the Rules provides for women reservation in the matter of promotion and appointment by transfer irvol,,, ing promotion to the posts ibr which *T.n and men are equalll. suited and where the cadre strength of l4 AKS,J&LNA,,] WA Nos 2a4 & 911 oI2021 posts is more than five, there shall be reservation to women to an extent of 33 ll3o/o in favour of SC and ST candidates'

15. Learned counsel for respondent Nos'i to 4 contended that in the notification issued by respondent No'6 in the year 2024 for the very same post i.e., the post of Welfare Officer' reservation for women is provided and as such, it is not fair and' in fact' justifiable on the part of respondent No 6 in not providing reservation for women in the notification dated 0l 03 '2023 and as such' the leamed single Judge has rightly set aside the selection list'

16. As regards the aforesaid submission of the leamed counsel' it is to be noted that after issuance of G'O Ms'No'3' dated 10.02.2024 and G.O.Ms'No 35, dated 13'02'2024 by the State Government, respondent No'6 issued notification in the yeat 2024 in accordance with the said G Os' However' the notification under challenge is issued in the year 2023 \'e'' on 01'03'2023' prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.Nos'3 and 35 by the State Govemment and therefore, the contention of the leamed counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is untenable' 15 AKS,J&LNN,J tt'A.lios.211 & 914 o[2021

11. Learned scnior counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 contended that il'women candidates are selected in open category and are appointed to the post in question, then the stand of rcspondent No.6-Company that the said post is not suitable for men and women equally is incorrect and the same is liable to be rcjected.

18. In reply to the said contention,, the leamed senior counsel for respondent No.6-Company contended that if women are selected in open category, then they will be assigned duties only in surl'ace rvolk ir-rg mines and open cast mines, but will not be assigned duties in underground mines.

19. ln thc prescnt case, the recruitment to the post of Welfare Officer Traince E- I Grade is lrom internal candidates

20. Sub-rtrle (4) of' Rule-22A provides for women reservation I where men uncl rvomen are equally suited. However, it is the specific conlention ol respondent No.6 that the post of Welfare Officer is not equally suited for men and women in view of hazardous nature of duties assigned and to be discharged by the l6 AKS,J&LNA,J W,4 Nos 211 & 944 o12021 said Officer and therefore, the said Rule is not applicable to the present case.

21. Further, it is apt to note that as per roster points for direct recruitment under Rules 22 and 22_A of the Rules, 1996,33 ll3% reservation is provided for women. However, aS per roster points for promotion under Rules-22 and, 22_A of the Rules, 1996, reservation of 33 for women IS not provided and the ll3 0A reservation is provided only for ST and SC candidates. 22. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the leamed single Judge considering the roster points for direct recruitment has come to conclusion that 33 l l3o/o reservation for women is applicable for the post of Welfare Officer .Irainee E_l Grade and accordingly, set aside the selection list dated

03.06.2023.

23. This finding of the leamed single Judge is erroneous in the teeth of roster points for promotion under Rules_2 2 and 22_A of the Rules, 1996, wherein reservation of 33 1/3 oZ for women is not provided and the reservation is provided only for SC and ST candidates. 17 ,,iKSJ&LAAJ tt/A.n'oj )41 ,k 941oJ2024

24. Respondent No.6 formulated Recruitrnent Rules as approved br thc Board of Directors on 23.05.1990. pat_l of the said Rr,rles ale applicable for external candidates and part_ll of the said Rules arc. applicable for intemal candidates. 25. As per llule-6 which is in part-I, the selections will be bascd on merit only, but, recruitment will be made following the rule of reservation provided for SCs/STs,ECs/Ex_ sen,icemen/Phvsicall.,, I Iandicapped persons and women candidatcs in accorda.cc with the Rules of the State (iovemrnent in folcc frorn tinre to tinte, wlterever necessary.

26. Therelbrc, ts rightly contended by learned senior counsel for respondenL No.6 the aforesaid Rule-6 is applicable for external candidates onlv and the present notification being issued fbr prornotion fr-om the internal candidates, the same has no I application to the pr.escnt case.

27. Furlher'. it is also perlinent to note that the ratio laid down by tlre Hon'blc Suprerre Court in Ramesh Chuntlra Shah,s case (cited supra), Ashok Kumar,s case (cited supra) and D.Sarojakumari's case (cited supra) is squarely appticable to the \ lI l8 W,4.Nos.211 & 941 of2021 present case, as admittedly, in the instant case, respondent Nos.l to 4 participated in the selection process and having realized that they are coming within the zone of consideration, cannot tum around and challenge the method of selection.

28. In the light of the foregoing reasons and discussion and in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, both the Writ Appeals deserve to be allowed

29. Accordingly,, both the Writ Appeals are allowed, setting aside the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned single Judge ol this Court in W.P.No. 13570 of 2023

30. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs /ffRUE COPY// SD/.K.SRINIVAS JOINT RE RAO RAR SECTION O FICER To,

1. The Special Chief Secretary Department of Energy, Secretariat Building Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Singareni Collieries Company Ltd, Singareni Bhavan, Hyderabad - 500 004

3. The Director (PA & W), The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Corporate Office Kothagudem 507 101

4. The General Manager, Recruitment, The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd Corporate Office Kothagudem 507 101 .

5. The Section Officer, Writ Posting Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

6. The Section Officer, Writ DB Section, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.

7. One CC to SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate [OPUC] 8. One CC to SRI A.G.SATYANARAYANA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 9. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 'l0.One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL [OPUC] 11.Tyvo -CCs to GP FOR ENERGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at V^ SR Hyderabad [OUTj

12.Two CD Copies , L t HIGH COURT DATED: 2410112025 COMMON JUDGMENT WA.Nos.244 and 944 ol 2024 c it-( 8l t'1;,1 206 rt * DEsnarc\{ ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT APPEALS, WITHOUT COSTS