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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in producing a separate merit list for N/ulti-Tasking Staff (Sanitary Attendant) and Multi-Tasking Staff (OfficA Attendant) in contrary to Original Recruitment Notification vide No. 1- 156llFBl201B-19, Dated 17th Aprit, 20'18 and subsequent Scheduled for written Examination vide No.1-156/lFB/RecruitmenU2018-19, Dated 2nd July, 2018 as unjust, illegal, and violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article '14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the Respondents to Prepare and Publish a single merit list for Multi-Tasking Staff for both Sanitary Attendant (SA) and Office Attendant (OA) as per the Original Notification. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Sectron 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 all further proceedings pursuant to Recruitment Notification vide No. 1- 156llFBl2018-19, Dated 17th April, 2018 issued by Respondent No.2, specifically, the Post of Multi-Tasking Staff, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 permit this respondent to proceed with the recruitment process to the post of Sanitary Attendant. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI RAMESH CHILLA counser ror the Respondents: Ms'L'P[iSiJil[ilBJ* DY.SOL.GENERAL ^r*o*, The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 33251 OF 2018 ORDER: The case of petitioner is that the 2"a respondent - institute of Forest Biodiversit5r issued Recruitment Notification dated 17 .O4 .20 18 for hve different posts, one among them is Mulfi-Tasking Staff (MTS) under which there were two categories; one Sanitary Attendant (SA) and another Office Attengant (OA). Accordingly, petitioner applied for the post of Multi-Tasking Staff; he secured 63 marks in the written examination, however, he could not find place in the merit list on the ground that he did not superscribe his Application mentioning the exact position he applied for i.e. either Ofhce Attendant or Sanitary Attendant. The grievance of petitioner is that Recmitment Notification for that matter, Schedule for Written Examination dated 02.O7.2018, had not stipulated that a candidate has to mandatorily mention the specific position on the Application. For the hrst time, while preparing merit list for different posts, resulds were separately mentioned as Multi- Tasking Staff (OA) for 448 candidates and Multi Tasking Staff (SA) for four candidates. it is complained that petitioner got 63 marks but his name was appearing in only Multi-Tasking Staff It ,i 2 --'1 h (OA), but missing for Multi-Tasking Staff (SA). He never chosc either OA or SA as it was never asked in the notihcation.

2. Learned counsel for petitroner Sri Ramesh Chilta submi[s that action of respondents in drawing two merit lists lrom a single written examination, is contrary [o recruitment notification, arbitrary and violates the equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. In support thereof, he rehed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shankq.rsq.n Dash v. (Jnion of Indiat and tlnion oJ India a Tallln K. Singhz. tt is also his contention that his client suffered mental trauma, hence, he shall be compensated. He placed in this regard reliance on the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Rudra Kumar Scin u. Union of India3 and S.P. So,mpath Kumar u. Union of Ind.iae.

3. By order dated 18.09.20 18, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings pursuanl to Recruitment NoLification dated 17.04.2018 issued by the 2",i respondent specihcally the posf of Multi-Tasking Staff. Thereafter, I' respondents had taken out I.A.No. 2 of 2O).8 seeking vacation of the said order. Along with the Application, counter was also '(r99t) i sctc 17 '1:oo:yrtsccozs f r:ooorn scc :; itlq8Tr I SCC [4 J filed stating that in the Notification under general instructions point No.4 "the envelope containing the application should be superscripted application for the post of"" '"' The envelope without superscription will not be entertained for further scrutiny. In spite of the incomplete Application' only on humanitarian grounds, he was permitted for the examination' Therefore, the contention of peti[ioner is liable to be rejected on the ground of incomplete or not submitted in prescribed format' and application for more than one post in single application' This Court by order dated 23' 10'2018 dismissed the 4- said Application recording that advertisement did not require petitioner to indicate the choice, hence, respondents cannot blame petitioner and deprive him of consideration for either of the posts. Hence, stay was made absolute' Across the bar, it is submitted by Ms L Pranathi 5. Reddy, learned counsel on behali of Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar' learned Deput5r Solicitor General that Writ Petition becomes infructuous since petitioner secured another employment and when asked, whether he is interested to join the post' the answer is 'no'. lrarned counsel for petitioner objects the said contention as legally-untenable lL is contended that Petitioner's currcnt employment does not render the Writ Petition r{ 4 \ *--.1 - h h h infructuous as he seeks to address respondents' arbitrary actions and claim compensation for the trauma and loss suffered. He relied on the judgments in Dr. (Mrs.) Meera Massseg u. Dr. S.R. Mehrotras and State oJ U.P- u- Raj Kishore YadanF wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a Writ Petition challenging an illegal recruitment process does not becomc infructuous merely because petitioner secured alternative employment; the Court can still adjudicate on the merits Lo ensure justice and prevent the recurrence of such illegalities.

6. From the submissions of learned counsel, it is clear that petitioner secured employment elsewhere and he is not u,illing to join this department. Hence, in view of the settled legal posiLion that appointment is not a vested right, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of petitioner that he is entitled to compensation on the alieged mental trauma.

7. It is to be noted that there is no mandatory stipulation that a candidate has to superscribe the Application mentioning the spccific internal category he is applving for within the Multi-Tasking staff. This Court granted interim stay which continued on account of dismissal of the Petition to t ( t9g8) -t scc tti u (2006) 5 scc 671 I I ) vacate stay. It is to be further noted thaL the Notification itself was stayed and it is not the case of petitioner that other candidates were appointed in the interregnum. This Court therefore, is of the considered view that in the light of the interim stay that has become absolute, no further orders are required in the Writ Petition.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. Responden[s are at liberty to appoint suitable candidate to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff try following due procedure in [aw. No costs.

9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC N OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI RAMESH CHILLA, Advocate, IOPUCI 2. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVAR, (Deputy Solicitor ceneral of lndia), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies. .r BSK GJP t{ HIGH COURT DATED:2910712025 21 AIJE 2025 * o €gp,116;ri. -(.\ t ORDER WP.No.33251 of 2018 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS &\ \pK