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 orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notification issued by the Respondent No.'l vide No. 6712017, dated. 18112120 17 as arbitrary and u nconstitutiona I and subsequently pass orders directing the Respondenis to remove the weightage for experience in the recruitment I lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumr,;tances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to directing the Respo rdents to remove the weightage for expe rience in the recruitment pending c isposal of this Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. GOPALA KRISHNA KALANIDHI Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI P. S. RAJASEKHAR (SC F'OR TGPSC) Counsel for the ResFrondent No.2: AGP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH l\ND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMEN'I" The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RIT P TIT NN 38 ot2 2 ORDER: Heard Sri Gopala Krishna Kalanidhi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, Sri p.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State public Service Commissioner, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and learned Assistant Government pleader for Medical and Family Welfare Department, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. 2 The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as u nder: "...to issue a Writ, order or orders more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Notification issued by the Respondent No.1 vide No. 67/2077, dated tB/72/2077 as arbitrary, and unconstitutional and subsequenfly pass orders directing the Respondents to remove the weightage for experience in the recruitment and/or to pass...,,. 3 The case oF the petitioner, in brief, is that the Telangana State Public Service Commission has issued a Notification No.67/2017, dated 18.12.2017 cailing for applications from 2 SN. J \!'P 13883 202 t eligible candi(iates for filling up the posts of Lab Tt:chnician, Grade-II in th,r Departments of Public Health and Famil.,, Welfare, Medical Education and Telangana Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. The petitioner app3ared for the Computer Based Rer:ruitmert Test for the post oF Lab Technician, Grade-il and secured 119 rnarks out of 150 marks. The selection procedure consists of weightage of total 100 points, out of which 70 points will be given t:o written examination and 30 points will be given to the experience of the candidates based on their Government Service. (:ranting of weightage mirrks for experience candidates in the selection process violat,ts Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the presont writ petition. PER UsED THE RECORD

4. Counter affidavit has been filed bv 1't res Don dent and the relevant Daraqraoh Nos.6, 7 8 anri 9 are extracted hereunder: *6. In tl)is regard, I submit that earlier certain candi(jates have fiied W.P. No. 40157/2077 questioning the acti)n of responden -s in issuing impugned GO Ms No. 156, F ealth Medical trnd Family Welfare B1 Department rjated 09.09.201./ of first respondent, G.O. lvls. No. 216, General Administra:ion (Ser A) Department, dated 09-09-2 Ot.7 of ) SN, J wP 33883 202 r second respondent and Notification No.57 of 2017 dated 0g_ tt-2017 of third respondent in so far for providing 30 points out of 100 points for Government contract service employees.

7. In this connection it is pertinent to submit here that, the Learned Full Bench of this Hon,ble Court in its Orders, dated: 18-09-2020 passed in W.p. No. 40157 of 2Ot7 and batch cases, clearly held in para No. 125 that, "it is for he emplover to extend weiqhta qe to tem DOrarv wh ile makln reou lar recrui tment. " The Learned Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court also clearly held in para No. 136 that it does not bestow anv vested riqht uo a Insts n wero htaoe to temDor a rv servtce r ndered b him

8. I submit that the Hon'ble High Court has uphold the constitutional validity of G.O.Ms. No. 166, HM & FW (B1) Dept. Dated: 09/O9/2Ot7 and thereby uphold the criteria of grant oF weightage marks to contract Employee. The Hon,ble High court upheld in the above said orders dated l8/O9l2O2O in W.P. No.40157/20t7 at para 82 thar ,,In the cases on hand, the Government decided to accord weightage to contract service while making regular recruitment. As asserted by the learned Special Government pleader, the appointments on contract basis were made after following the process of selection. Thus, those appointments cannot be called illegal appointments. Thus, the Government is legally justified in granting the weightage marks to the contractual employees" 4 SN, J \\ , 13883 2021 i submit that the TSPSC followed the Procedur,.: for 9. select on ir accordance with the G.O.Ms. No. 166, HN4 tI FW (81) Dept. Dated: 09/09/2017. Para VIiI of the Notification No. 67/2317, Dl: 1,Bli.2/2O17 describes the procedrre as under:- THI: FINAL SELECTION OF THESE POSTS WILI- BE BASED ON 70 WEIGHTAGE (POINTS) IN WRI'-TEN EXAMINAT ON AND 30 WEIGHTAGE (POINTS) FOR THE GOVT. SERVICE (EXPERINECE) PUT TOGETHER. The procedure rf selection for the post of is as follows: 0 Particulars Weightage (Point:;) 1 2 Written Examination Experience Total : 70 30 100

5. The learned Standinq Counse! apDearinq on behalf of the 1st respondent brinos to the notice of the Court that the 1"t respondent undertook recruitm en as .per the G.O.Ms.No. 165 . Health, Medical and Fam ilv Welfare (81) t DeDt, Dated 09.O9.2OL7, which was uoheld bv thi s Court vide orders of this Court dated 18.O9.2O2O oas sed in W.P. No. 40175 t2 o L7 2 nd further the le a rned Standinq Counsel a n beh lf of the r s ondents sub mits 5 tn vtew of the fact that SN, J wP ll88l 2021 the oetitioner has not challe nqed the validitv of he G.O.M s.No. 1 66 Health. Medical and Fam Welfare B1) Deot, Dated O9 .o9.2017 as on date, the petitioner is not entitle d for the r lief, as nraw atl f r Irl the recanf t^,rit eti t CONCLUSION DISCUSSION A 6. A bare perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1"t respondent clearly indicates that the 1"t respondent undertook the recruitment process as per G.O.Ms.No. 166, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (B1) Dept, Dated 09.O9.2Ot7t which had in fact been upheld by this Court. It is pertinent to note and to extract the order dated 18.09.2O20 passed in W.p. No. 4O175 of 2OL7, wheren Full Bench of this Court observed at para Nos,125 and at para No.136 as hereunder:- '125. This issue is answered as under: (i) Governmentservice: (a) If the Service Rules/policy decisions do not provide weightate to contract service/service on outsourcing basis, no temporary employee can assert that his temporary service should be reckoned in the selection process for direct recruitmenU 6 SN, J wP 13883 202r (b) If no provision is made in the Service Ftules/policy decisi,)ns, it is for the employer to extend weightage to tempr rary service while making regular recruitmen.i ( ii) Power Utilities: Ttre Settlements entered into by the managements to provide weightage to service rendered on contrar:t basis/on outsourcing basis confers right to all those temporary employees governed by the Settlements and claim we,ghtage nrarks for such service and the power Utilities Corrpanies are bound to provide weightage marks. However, it is clarified that even though Setuement dated 18.12.21)10 fixed maxin um weightage marks as 45, the same was r.educed to 20 m; rks in view of the judgment of learned Sirrgle Judge dated 09.12.2013 in W.p.No.3753 of 2O7Z and batch, affirmed by the first Division Bench. (iii) State Government service and service in power Utilities Companies: (a) \4/hile extending weightage to temporary s€ rvice it is permissible for the employer to prescribe paran.teters and to restrict grant of such weightage to a class of people, or to people working with that employer/ ser,/ice in a par-icular post, if necessary etc. Therefore, no prerson has a right to claim weightage to temporary ser,r'ice as a m a1.ter of course; (b) It is for the employer to make an assessmr:lnt of job req rirements of a post in its service; it is op,:n to the emJrloyer to refuse to grant weightage to :emporary sen,ice rendered in a post, within its emplo/ment or orJt:;ide.

136. recruitment u n der: llaving considered various aspects concerring regular in public employment, the issues are answered as ]. STATEG OVERNM NT SERV ICE: l SN. ] wP 31883 2021

1. This Court upholds the constitutional validity of Rule 31 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996' Moreover, ihe exercise of power under the said Rule is legally valid'

2. The power of relaxation of Service Rules gan be exercised by the Governor in order to remove the restriction on computation oi ternpo.uty service imposed by the Service Rule, and to enable the tempoiary employee to compute the temporary service as weightage in the process of regular recruitment;

3. However. if the Service Rules do not envisage assignment of marks for temporary service in the regular recruitment, it is for the employer to assign such weightage. For, such a power is an enabling power. It does not bestow any vested right upon a temporiry employee to insist upon extension of weightage to tem'porary service rendered bY him; II. POWER UTILITIES COM PA IES: 1. As the binding Settlements require assignment marks for temporary service in the regular recrultment, temporary employee is entitled to seek its enforcement;

2. It is permissible for the employer to restrict application of weightage to temporary service rendered only under him and/or in a pa rticu la r post; III. STATE GOVERNMENT SERVICE AND SERVICE IN POWER UTILITIES COMPANIES: As part of the selection process for direct recruitment, the emptoyer has the power to apportion marks towards service rendeied on temporaiy basis. However, the marks, so apportioned, shall not be more than 20 marks out of total marks of 100, or not more than 2Oo/o of the total marks". 7 This Court opines that in view of the fact that admittedly, the petitioner had not challenged the said G'O'Ms'No' 166, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (81) Dept, Dated 09'09'2017 I I 8 *r, -,rr*, )fiJ as on date and further, duly considering the orclers, dated 18.09.21120 passed in W.p.No.40t75 of 2017 (referred to and extracted above), this Court opines that the petiticner is not entitled for e ny relief as prayed for in the present writ petiiion and the sam€r is dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petilions, if any pending, n the Writ petition shall also stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY 'D EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC t(, SRI GOpAt 4.IEIHNA KALAN|DH|, Advocate [Orruct 2. one cc rc SRr. p s RAJ 3 rwo ccs ro GF FoR rvEDiaAa iiEdir"H xr.rb'r"f,rr,,rL v wEr..FARE, Hioh Court for the St:rte of Tel + rwo Co ioiiE. '" " rYr?nQotlo' at Hyderabad [oUT] .s_EKHAH isc Fir,tribFscf topucl BIV l l I i i HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.33883 of 2021 CC TODAY ,r a sl ) ':\, \\ 2 1 i: ,'r 2[?5 .::,: -t ' ,.. t) ,.. i i)v'-'l ' -- ( .,\' t;. t\ I ,. ',;i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS [.- *),,/ /./ |