G'Biksham v. The State of Telanqana

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewi[h, the High court may be qlgSsed to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of VtnNOnUUS to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the claim ofthepetitionerforappointmenttothepostofVeterinaryAssistanteventhoughhe secured more marks than the ,noffici"l respondent is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutionalWithconsequentialdirectiontotherespondentstoconsiderthe "tri. of the petitioner for appointment to the post.of Veterinary Assistant on par *itf, tn" unofiicial respondents with all consequential benefits LA. NO: 1 O F 2017(WPMP NO: 32293 O F 20171 PetitionunderSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct in" ,"rp""O""ts to consider the ciaim of the petitioner for appointment to the post ofVeterinaryAssistantintheexistingVacancyforthwithbyextendingtheorders pr.rlJ ov the Hon,bte Tribunat in o.A.No.1 141 of 2015 dated 08.02.2015 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAVINDER ALKUCHT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: Gp FOR SERVICES ll counsel for the Respondent No.4: sRI sANTHApuR SAWANARAYANA RAo The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 26040 OF 2Ol7 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of respondents in not considering petitioner's claim for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant though he secured highcr marks.

2. Petitioner, who admittedly, belongs to BC-B category, claims to have prosecuted Intermediate Vocational Course in Dairy and Po.ultry Science and e is fully eligible and qualihed to hold the post of Veterinary Assistant in accordance with the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.26, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries (AH II) Department, dated

24.06.2004. As per the said G.O., 5O7o vacancies are meant for direct recruitmcnt and 5Oo/o for in-service candidates working in the department. [t is relevant to submit that, during 2006, Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University also introduced the Veterinary Polytechnic Courses for 2 years. Therefore, the Government issued amended Rules through G.O.Ms.No.27, dated O3.O5.2OO8 giving efigibility to the Polytechnic candidates of S.V.V. University on par with Intermediate Vocational Candidates. ) While so, responding to the Notification issued by the 3.d respondent dated 27.10.2008 for hlling up the post of Veterinary Assistant in rhe State including Khammam District, petitioner is stared to have submitted Application but the same was not received on the ground that Rules were amended through G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 03.05.2008. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner along with others filed O.A No.9611 of 2008, wherein the Tribunal granted interim direction on 21.11.2OO8 to receive their Applications and permit them for selection process, but not to announce the results. Pursuant thereto, petiLioner is stated to have attended interview and waiting lor appointment orders. In the meantime, similarly situated persons approached the Tribunal challenging amcndment to Clause (ii) (b) against the post of Veterinary Assistant in category-4 in class-A under the method of appointment in table rule 5 to the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 28.06.2004 by way of amendment notihed vide G.O.Ms.No.2Z, dated 03.05.200g, in O.A.No. 1O298 of 2008 and batch. The Tribunal granted interim direction suspending the impugned amendment of undergoing one year departmental training. Consequently, il is stated, respondents issued G.O.Ms.No.6, dated 10.02.20O9 dispensing J with one year departmental training prior to selection' Therefore, the Tribunal disposed of O.A.No. 10298 of 2008 and batch by judgment dated 21. 12.2OO9 directing respondents to declare results in respect of the candidates who submitted Applications prior to amendment and they should be appointed by ignoring the condition imposed in G'O'Ms'No '27, dated 03.05.2008. Pursuant to the said order, the 2"d respondent issued U.O Note No. 2248618-IIllB 24 l2OO9' dated 14'10'2010 imparting training of one year Veterinary Assistants course for selected candidates and accordin gly, T4 candidates were sent for in service training. The grievance of petitioner is that he secured 7O2 rnarks in Intermediate, however, the persons with less marks goi selected and appointed to the post of Veterinary Assistant. tn spite of repeated representations, respondents have not provided merit list Under the Right to Information Act' he could secure the list of selected candidates which discloses that the persons secured less marks than petitioner were appointed. It is stated, similarly placed persons belonging to District hled O.A.No.1141 of 2015, wherein the granted interim direction stating that "Pending Warangal Tribunal disposal of the O.A., as the applicants possess Intermediate \ 4 f.' Vocational Course in Diary and Poultry Sciencc and attended interview on 26.11.20O8 and their names were sho'"t'n in the merit list, Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to consider their cases for undergoing one year training coursc and for appointment to the post of Veterinary Assistan ts in the existing vacancies in terms of Memo No.6175/AH-II(2) l2Ol2, dated

71.O2.2074 and Memo No.6175/AH-ll(2)l2Ol2, dated

03.71.2012 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order". Implementing the said orders, Memo dated 29.12.2015 was issued appointing them as Veterinary Assistants in the existing vacancies, As petitioner is also similarly-situated person, he fited the Writ Petition seeking indulgence of this Court.

3. The 3'd respondent hled counter staling that uide Memo dated 06-04-20O5, Director of Animal Husbandry accorded permission to appoint 24 VeLerinary Assistants on contract basis and through Proceedings dated Ol 06 2OO7, they were selected. Again, the Director of Animal Husbandry accorded permission to filI up 8O0 existing vacancie s uide Memo dated 26-09-2O08. Since employees are working on contract basis, there is no need to screen them once again by the selection committee, appointment orders were issued to (24) ) Veterinary Assrstants in Khammam District through Proceedings dated 30-09-2008' Vide Director of Animal Husbandry Memo dated 13-10-2OO8, for fil1ing up of Veterinary Assistant posts with those (304) candidates who have already possessing the qualihcation of 2 years Diploma course in Animal Husbandry conducted by Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University / A.N.G.R. Agricultural University' 4 Veterinary Assistants were selected and wcre issued posting orders through Proceedings dated' 24 11-2008' Pursuant to the Memo issuedbytheDirector,dated12o2-2oog,lorlillingupof(10) Veterinary Assistant posts, selected candidates were issued orders uide Proceedings dated 03-08-2009' to undergo Veterinary Assistant training course for one year at their own It is stated, the Director of Animal Husbandry uuCe Memodated..l2-O2-2OOg,accordedpermissiontofillupoflO Veterinary Assistant posts for 2OO9 ' by Direct Recruitment for which a Selection Committee was constitutcd and in accordance with their instructions, Notification was issued inviting Applications for the post of Veterinary AssisLants on 2O-O5-2O09 Accordingly Applications were received as follows: 6 r". 1) 2l 3) 4l s) 6) s.c -(w) BC-B BC-c(w) BC-E(w) o.c. oc- (w) No. of posts to be filled 1 Post 1 Post l Post l Post 3 Posts 3 Posts No of applications received 61 applications 107 applications 3 a pplications 4 a pplications 533 a pplica tions 181 a pplications After conducting written test / screening test, merit list was prepared with eligible candidates at 1:1O ratio, wherein petitioner was not selected. It is stated, only one post was reserved for BC-B, but petitioner has not came under 1 : 1O ratio. It is stated that in O.A. No. 9611 of 20O8 hled by eight un employed people, petitioner is the 56 Applican[ from Khammam District but the said O.A. No. 9611 of 2O08 is not pertaining to this District. It is stated that training pe rtain s to in-service candidates and that 74 candidates sent for training belongs tc> Zone - IV but r,ot Zone -V in vvhich Khammam District falls. It is stated that the individual has sought for information under the RTI Act 2O05, regarding 24 Veterinary Assistants appointed during 2008, as per which, it is clear that they were selected on contract basis uide proceedings dated 13 04 2005. As per Proceedings, dated 01 06-2006, candidates whp tlhve undergone Veterinary Assistant Training for one year with effect from 15-04 2O05 to 14-04-2006, including the 4d, - l l respondent, were appointed as Veterinary Assistants on contract basis for a period of Two years through Proceedings dated 30-09-2008, but petitioner applied for Veterinary Assistant post for the Notihcation issued in the Month of May 2OO9, herrce he may not come under selection process of 2OO8' 4 Heard Sri Ravinder Alkuchi, counsel for petitioner as well as Ms. T. Geetha, Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II on behalf of respondents'

5. As could be Seen from the material on record' annexurestothecounjer-affidavitinparticular,byproceedings of the 3'd respondent dated 01'06'20O6, the candidates who have undergone Veterinary Assistant Training lor one year with effect from f5.04.2OO5 to 74'O4 2006 were appointed as Veterinary Assistants on contract basis for a period o[ two years and they have been appointed as such uide proceedings dated 3O.O9.2OO8 but petitioner had applied for the said post uide Notification issued in May 2OO9, hence, his case could not be considered under selection process of 2OO8 lt is also clear that as per Note Orders of the Joint Collector and Chairman' a paper notification was issued by inviting Applications for the post of Veterinary Assistants in daily newspapers on 2O 05'2OO9' pursuant to which, objective test was conducted for the \ \ f ( 8 individuals at 1:1O ratio for the categories SC(W), BC-B, OC and OC(W), written test/screening test was conducted and a merit list l,r,as drawn with the eligible candidates in which, petitioner was not selected in 1: 1O ratio. In view of the same, it cannot be said that petition er's case was not considered on par with the 4m respondent. The Writ petition is therefore, liable to bc dismissed. 6 7 . The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed_ No Consequerttly, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL UTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER $

1. One CC to SRl. RAVINDER ALKUCHI Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High Court for the State of Telangana

3. One CC to SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYANA RAO Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies xeq, , HIGH COURT DATED:2810512025 ORDER WP.No.26040 of 2017 I i t, c '.) I r tuE ztE * D SPATcH gO s( o a' DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS a