Court in various decisions including in thLl case of Indro Sau,hney v. Union of Intliat, Rajesh Kumor Daria Vs. Rajasthan P,ubli

I\pp rllants: SRI G.VIDYASAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, l?EP. FOR SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel for the Fler;rrondent No.1: SRI GODA SHIVA, Sr. COIJNSIiL, REP. FOR SMT GODA RAMALAKSHIVII WRIT APPEAL NO: 1172 OF 2024 Writ Appea unCer clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferrt:d a,)ainst the order dated 03/06/2024 n tly, W P No 2246 of 2023 on the file of the High Oourt. Between:

1. The Telangr:rr State Southern Power Distribution Company -imited, having Compouitd, tyde rabad 500063, its Corporate {)Ffice at H. No. 6-150, Rep by its; (.hir rran and lvlanaging Director. ^,4int

2. The Chief llerr reral lManager (HRD), TSSPDCL, Co'porate ( )ffice, at H No 6-150 tVlint .)crt:ound, Hyderabad 500063 ...APPELLANTS/RESPOND ENT Nos.1 & 2 AND 1 Gorukant V n,r 7 Kumar, S/o Krishna aged 22 years R/o H No ' 3-236 Yadagirl Gutta, Yad:,d-i 3hongiri District Telangana State PIN 50tr 111; BCA H T No 303162 Vlar(s 15 Rank '17. 2 ...RESPONDENT/WRI T PETITIONER Rajeshwari Acc nda, D/o Not known aged about 30 ),ears, C/o 0/o The SupenntenclinJ En9i1ee1 ]-_S SEDQL Yadadri Bhongiri Dislrict Telangana State PIN 5.)B l5 BCA H T No 301860 l/arks 40 Rank48 ...RESPONDENTS 3 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 the Judgment passed in W.P. No. 2246 of 2023, Dated 3-6-2024. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI G.VIDYASAGAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI R.ViNOD REDDY, SC FOR TSSPDCL Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GODA SHIVA, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SMT GODA RAMALAKSHMI The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT HON'BI,F. .SITI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SttAVILI AND HON'BLI) SiR] .IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA,\LISHI:TTY \r/fi. 't APPEAL Nos.l 165 & I 172 of 2014 COMMON I UII (]MENT'. (per Hon ble Sri Justice Lal\mi Nordyana 'lti:he'ry-) Writ A.pp )rrl Nos.1l65 and ll72 of 2024 are fi[e,1 asr,ailing the commcn o:',lt:r, dated 03.06.2024, passed by a learned single Judge of this C t,urt in W.P.Nos.38124 ol 2022 and 2245 of 2023, respectivel.r

2. By the irnpugned common order, the learned:ingle.[u'lge ol this Courl a Ll<:r v:d the Writ Petitions fited by respondent No.l herein in botl the Writ Appeals, seeking to declare the action of the appellants :n tr: l ting the women reservation as vertical reser vation instead o': hcrizorrtal reservation, pursuant to rotification No.212022 datec 09.05.2022,,asillegal. arbitrary and in riola ion of Articles 14, i6 and 2l of the Constitution of lndia an<l for other' consequenlia) relrefs.

3. Hear<: ll -: G.Vidyasagar, learned senior counsel app earing for Sri R.Vin,rct F:eddy, leamed Standing Counsel fol thc app,:llant- 2 AKS,J&LNA,J WA.Nos.l !65 & I172 oJ 2024 \l\^ \ I Telangana State Southem power Distribution Company Limited (TSSPDCL) and Sri Goda Shiva, leamed senior counsel appearing for Smt Goda Ramalakshmi, leamed counsel on record for respondent No.l in both the Writ Appeals.

4. The appellants are respondent Nos.1 and,2 and, respondent No. I in both the Writ Appeals are writ petitioners in the Writ Petitions. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. The brief factual matrix of the case, shom off unnecessary details, is that respondent Nos.l and 2 issued notification No.212022 dated 09.05.2022 calling for online applications from eligible candidates for filling up 201 posts of Sub-Engineer (Electrical) posts; that in response to.the same, the writ petitioners have submitted online applications, appeared in the written test conducted on31.07.2022; rhat rhe writ petitioner in W.p.No.3gl24 of 2022 got 43 marks and secured I 17 rank in Hyderabad District and the writ petitioner in WP.No.2246 of 2023 has got 45 marks and secured first rank in BC-A community and his overall rank was J ..r,i -!. & L.\:, J tt.1 ) os l165 & t17) of20)1 .17 in Yadadr i-l3f ongir District; that there are no B(l-A can(lidates in the merit ris: f rom ranks I to 6; that women candidale w'lo got five marks l,,rsr; Than the writ petitioner was selected in view of application o l'r' r rtical reservation lor women.

5.1. It u'a:, 1i:rther averred that in the notillcatron dated

09.05.2022, out rf 201 posts, 101 posts were earmarl:ed lbr v,,omen category arrd thr balance 100 posts are earmarked open lbr general category, which rs, in fact, against the principle lairl down ry the Hon'ble Supr:rr: Court in various decisions including in thLl case of Indro Sau,hney Vs. Union of Intliat, Rajesh Kumor Daria Vs. Rajasthan P,ubli,: Service Commission and othersl and Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Briftl wlrerern it is held that worner :eservation is horizontal reservation, howev,:r, the appellants l.ra've applied both horizontal and vertical rest.rval ion in favour of v,ornt:,r candidates which is causing injustice to the other candidates. ' 1992 Supp (3) S( C 2 ' alR 2oo7 sc t t l7 'zoto 1rz; scc z, + 4 AKS,J&LNA,J LI/A.Nos.ll65& t 172 o12024

5.2. According to the writ petitioners, in respect of Hyderabad District, five posts were notified for BC-A, out of which only two (40%) posts were notified for general category, whereas three posts (600/o) were earmarked for women category.

5.3. In respect of Yadadri-Bhongir District, out of ten posts notified for BC-A category, only four posts (40%) were notified for general category, whereas six posts (60%) were earmarked for women category

6. The grievance of the writ petitioners is that only 33.33%o of women reservation has to be given to women, that too, it has to be applied horizontally, however, respondent Nos.l and 2 have notified 101 posts out of 201 posts i.e., 50.24yo to women category, which is contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts.

7. The writ petitioners also avered that reservation followed by retpondent Nos.l and 2-TSSPDCL under the guise of following 100\ point roster in terms of Rule-22 and Rule-22-A of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for brevity 'Rules, 5 ,Jl S & r'-,\:l J *I'os1165& 1996') is iJler3al and arbiffary and violative of Articles- 14. 6 and 21 of the Conslirrtion of India and contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Strp:err er Court in Indru Sawhney's case (cited r'upra), Rajesh Kumur ,)aria's case (cited supra) and Mamla Brsil's case (cited supra) Flence, the writ petitioners filed the abovt Writ Petitions

8. Resp,orLdent Nos.1 and 2-TSSPDCL filed counters irr both the Writ petitions contending that it has adopte,J the /PSEB Service Regulat ons and Rule 22 Part-II provides fot res,:n'a ion of appointments; b I direct recruitment by promotion, andr or by transfer and fl rtl.rer, as per Rule-22A of the Rules, 19'96, in the matter of dir.'cr. rrlcruitment to the posts for which men and \,/omen are equalll :;uit:C, preference will be given for womerr an,J they shall be 5sle,.:t(:( I to an extent of 33 ll3 0Z posts in each cat :gory- OC, BC, S(.1 rurd ST quota and that Schedule-{Il of Service Regulations l)e,r t-III provides that appointments shall be m rde in order of ror.ar ior ';pecified therein in every cycle of iC0 vacarcies - \ 6 .4KS,J&LNA,J trA.Nos.l165 & I172 oJ 2024

8.1. It was fur1her stated that as per Rule 22 (d) of the Rules, 1996, women shall also be considercd for the remaining appointments, in addition to 33 ll3% of reservation which are to be filled up on the basis of open competition and the number of appointments reserved for that category shatt in no way be affected during the period the reservation for that category is in force.

8.2. It was further stated that in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case (cited supra) and Mamatha Bisht,s case (cited supra), the Flon'ble Supreme Court held that reservation for women candidate shall be treated as horizontal reservation, however, the Hon,ble Supreme Court has nor dealt with the Rules specified in Rules, 1996 and the service Regulations, therefore, the said judgments have no application to the present cases.

8.3. It was further stated that it is prerogalive of the State Govemment and the TSSPDCL to prescribe the reservation in conformity with Articles 14 and, 16 of Constitution of India and so long as there is no challenge to Rule-22 and Rule-22A of the Rules, 7 1(-i ., & I \,,1 J tt'.1 I 's.l 165 & il )of202a 1996, the r(:li,rfs :iought for by the writ petitioners a'e lilble to be rejected.

8.4. It u'zLs tirlher contention of the TSSPDCL that tht writ petitioners )ra're rpplied for the posts pursuant to notification dated

20.06.2022. apt),rared in the written examination hel,l on 3l .07 .2022 kn,: r,ring fully aware of the reservation anl the vacancies ean-na'lced community-wise, gender-wise and ther:tbre, the Writ ['et.iti<,ns are not maintainable and are liable .o ,be dismissed i,r terr ns of the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprr:me Court in Rajesh ()hon'lra Shah and others Vs. Anil Joshi and ot,hersa, wherein it is hell that a person who has consciousl1 taken g'art in the selection pr(,(:ess cannot thereafter tum around and cha lenge the procedure,'r-rrr x hod of selection.

8.5. It was iurl her averred that insofar as WP.No.2ll46 rf 2 )23 is concemed. or.t ( 1 1en posts notified for Yadadri-Bhongir Drstrict, one post is rnder 5Yo quota and nine posts are under 95o% quo.a and one post rs ea r r-iarked for BC-A-W and therefore, the writ petitioner thereirr who belongs to BC-A was considered ailainst n zo t: 1u.1 scc trro -,-/ 8 AKS,J&LNA,J WA Nos 1165 & t 172 of202t oc-general vacancy and since he did not fa within the zone of consideration, he was not selected and hence, the Writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.6. It was further averred that insofar as Wp.No.3g l 24 of 2022 is concemed, the writ petitioner therein, who secured 1 I 7 rank having got 43 marks, does not fall within the zone of selection and therefore, he was not selected.

9. Leamed single Judge of this Court in the impugned order has referred to the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta and olhers Vs, State of (Jp and otherss, wherein it is held that reservation in favour of socially and economically backward classes of citizens would fall within the meaning of Article 15(a) of the Constitution of India and against every vertical reservation, a similar provision was made, which meant that the said horizontal reservation in favour of women was to be a compartmentalized, horizontal reservation,,. The leamed single Judge of this Court has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria, s case (cited 5 l tees; s scc tz: - / 9 ,1I5I 'd I-,\,J J tt 1) os 116i,\ t ,72 al202a 'supra), wF er :ir the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given d :tailed illustration ,Ls to the application of horizontal and rerlical reservations. anc as regards the aspect relating to the diff':rence between '.h,: lature of vertical reservation and hor zontal reserv'attons. t, .'vas held that special reservations in f'av rur of physically hirnrl <:apped, women, etc., under Articles l6(l) o 15(3) are horizorLti'I tr :ervations.

10. The li'arr ed single Judge of this Court by referring lo and relying upon ttrr:judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme (lourl in .t?aiesh Kumar Dfirt'u' : case (cited supra) came to a conclusion tlrat the action of reljpc rLdents in treating women reservation as r ertical resen,atiorL is n clear violation of the said jud6lmer.t and accordingly', a l:wed both the Writ Petitions ide imlrugned " common orr1e' rnd directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the ein to strictly appl'' lhc Rule of reservation for womer, as horizontal reservation an,I rnake appointments. Aggrieved by th : said common olJr:r , the present Writ Appeals are hlr:d lry the TSSPDCL. l0 AKS,J&LNA,J ll/A.Nos.ll65 & I l7) of2024 I l. Leamed senior counsel appearing for TSSpDCL submitted that the appellants are following Rute-22 and Rute-22-A of the Rules, 1996 and the said Rules are not under challenge. He further submitted that in the notification dated 09.05.2022 it is clearly mentioned about the reservation to be applied to women and various other categories. He further submitted that the TSSPDCL are following 100 roster points as specified under Rule-22 and Rule-22-A ofthe Rules, 1996 and accordingly filled up the posts. Leamed senior counsel further submitted that Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996 were amended vide GOMs.No.l07, GAD, dated27.07.2018 by incorporating clause-d to proviso to Rule 22 of the Rules, 1996 as per which, the claims of women should be considered for the remaining appointments which shall be filled on the basis of the open competition and number of appointments reserved for that category shall in no way be affected during the period of reservation for that category and thus, horizontal reservation has not been made applicable to women candidates in the state of Telangana at that time. )Kt.. & Ln.1, J r'1 .\ )s M5 & I I '2 o! 2A2t

12. Leamerl : e nior counset further submitted that the lt'amed single Judg,e etrcneously placed reliance on the judgme nt lf the Hon'ble Sttprert t: Court in Raiesh Kumar Daris's case (cited supra) since sr,Li lt Rules have not been challenged or suspended while notific rtic rL No.2 ol 2022 was issued. He finrrlly conl ended that reservat ion has been made strictly in accordance rvi .h the Rules which ,,vere notified and applicable at the relevant point of time and li.ul : 22 of the Rules, 1996, as am:ndt'd .by GO.Ms.No.l 0?. (lAD, daled 27 .07 .2018, was in forr:e and t},e writ petitioners ar: r,'r:11 aware of the reservation earmarl:ed ;br r arious categories n tht -totification No.2 of 2022, the conditions sp,:cified therein and h rving participated in the selection process cannr)t now tum round arrd t lLallenge the said notification.

13. Per ,:ontr r leamed senior counsel appearing foresp,rndent No.l herein. i.r.. the writ petitioners, submitted that the l,:amed single Judge has rightly allowed the Writ Petitions fol orvirg the judgments ol' - on'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumtr llaria's case (cited sr.rprr) and in fact, no grounds are made cut 10 inlerfere with the ir-.rp,,r1r,r,:d common order. He further submittetI thr,t Rule t2 AKS,J&LNA.J wA Nos.I 165 & 1172 of2021 22 and Rule-22-A of the Rules, 1996, being relied upon and followed by the TSSPDCL arc conrrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria,s case (cited supra) and therefore the TSSPDCL cannot take shelter under Rule_ 22 and, 22-A of the Rules, 1996 for applying the vertical reservation for women.

14. In the light ofthe pleadings put forth by both the parties and the contentions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the only point that falls for consideration before this Court is whether vertical reservation for women sought to be applied by the appellant basing on Rule-22 and,22-A of the Telangana State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1996 is sustainable or ccntrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumur Daries's case (cited supra).

15. It is the specific stand of the appellant that vertical reservation for women is being applied basing on Rule-22 and 22- A of the Rules,l996 and as long as the said Rules are not under challenge, the same have to be applied and hence, leamed single 13 lAt & l,\7. J tt'1. t os ll65 & I I 72 ol lA24 ,Judge has failed to consider this aspect and erroneously alloil ed the Writ Petitic,n.

16. The H,.rn'lrle Supreme Coun in Rajesh Kumar Dtria's case (cited supra) b1 referring to various judgments on th,: pc int ol applicability ,rt vertical and horizontal reservation, finally held as hereunder:- "Soc;ct, r',t:eryalion in favour o.f SC, ST and OB(-. un,ler Articia tt(4) are vertical reseryolion. Speria! reser'tatiat t in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., u'rte , Articles l6(l) or l5(3) are horizor.tol resertotict." 17 . Even o,.lu:rwise, as per Rule-22 and 22-A of rhe liules, 1996 preferencc ;hall be given [o women to an extent of 33 33%o in the matter or rl rect recruitment lor the post to which me r and women are e(luil ly suited

18. This (lorr t is of the considered view that w()men mentioned in 1h: 'Reservation' clause in the subjec t nr,tif-rc ation, refers to wouleu in general or women as a whole, which con.;titute a separate cl,tlL:e , and there cannot be further classif;cati,:n of women in thr form of vertical reservations or in the fonn o1 SCs. 14 AKS,J&LNA,J WA.Nos t 165 & 1172 oI2021 STs and BCs and other categor.ies, since the same amounts to double reservation.

19. The object of the Rules, 1996 is to provide reservation to women to an extent of 33 ll3% in the matters of direct recruitment. If women reservation is to be applied vertically, then meritorious women candidates would not be considered as per their merit, thereby, depriving them of their candidature. When once the Rules, 1996 has envisaged for reservation in favour of women to an extent of33 l/3'd %o, then the horizontal reservation has to be applied in order to cnsure that meritorious women candidates from any of the category would get justice. If women reservation is to be applied vertically, the object of rule rnaking in providing res.rvation to arl extent of 33 lBd Yo in Lhe rnatters of direct recruitment would be defeated.

20. A larger Bench of rhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case has interpreted the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, which is subject matter therein, vis-d-vis the special reservations in lavour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(l) or 15(3) and held that special reservations 15 {(i r & l\7 J ll 2 o.f2Dt Such as resen'ati lns meant for physicalty handicapped, vvomen and other statutor\' 'eservations are to be treated as .toriilontal reservation ald llat becomes the law of the land. '[herefor:, the appellants c :)u I I not treat women reservation as vt rr{is61 reservation, r,'hi,;ir would be run contrary to the law laid ty the Hon'ble Su.plcrr e , Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria's orse icited supra). The prin,: ple laid down by the Hon'ble Supremo Clc,urt is the law of the larr<1 and it has to be followed in true letter and spirit and any aclio1 ( ()ntrary or in violation of the same, is unte nable and thus, un sLrsta irlable

21. In ttre li13tt of the above judgments of the Horr'ble Sul,rsms I I Court in An,il f{umar Gupta's case (cited supra), ."v hich was followed in R'tgesh Kumar Daria's cae (cited supra) the I t contention <rf th: rrppellant that G.O.Ms.No.3 dated l().022(r.21 and GO.Ms.No. l5 dted 13.02.2024, issued by the Governrnelt of Telangana, rn.rending Subordinate Seruice Rule, 1996 an,i crt ating

33.33% resr:n. ar.i on for women in direct recruitment as hori; ontal reservation a:e c,nly prospective, therefore, the same ar() not l1 l6 ,lKS,J&I,N4,J W A.Nos I165 & I 172 o12021 -\ t: applicable to present norificar.ion No.2/2022 dated 09.05.2022, does not hold water and shatters to ground.

22. In the light of foregoing discussion and the principle laid down by l{on'ble Supreme Courl in the afcresaid judgments, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned or.ders of the leamed Singte Judge and the Writ Appeal are liable to be dismissed.

23. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals ar.e dismissed. 24 As a sequcl, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ,TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI R,VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TS One CC to Stt/T GODA RAMALAKSHMI, Advocate [OPUC] CL [OPUC] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 J BSR GJP ; HIGH CO tJlt?T DATED: 02,.,,0512025 COMMON JI.,DGMENT WA.Nos.l.t6,5 2n6 1172 of 2024 l (+( Z 6) ,- -- ,t c sl4 Ie: /,r' 7\(L :, ') ,7,\1 21 JUN 26 r-i DISMISSING ISOTH THE WRIT APPEALS, WITHOUT COSTS /^) ?{ L u rl -r 0