Moluguri Dryya v. THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

Order

ftter Hon'ble Sri Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda) This Writ Petition is hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the termination order, dated 17.12.2024, without issuing aly prior notice or without following due process of law, especially when the alleged selection of the petitioner as local candidate is well withih the knowledge of the respondent authorities prior to her appointment, as bad, arbitrar5r, illegal, high-handed and violative of Articles, 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benel-rts.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. I issued Notification bearing No.O1 of 2023, dated O2.O1.2O23 for filling up of various posts including the post of Junior Assistant in District Judiciary of respondent No.2 authority She is a resident of Hanumkonda District. Since the petitioner possessing the necessary qualifications AS 2 - PSI(J&NNR.J w -36420 _.2024 mentioned in the Notification, she applied fcrr the post of Junior Assistant under non-local category. rln 30.06.2023, the respondent authorities released the provisiona,r selection list of the caldidates, wherein the name of the. petitioner was reflected in Bhadradri-Kothagudem District. pr-rsuant to the same, she was issued appointment order, dated 14.02.2024 appointing as Junior Assistant with respondent No.2 duly fixing the roster point. It is further stated that from the date of her appointment, she has been u,orking kr the utmost satisfaction ol' the higher authorities and she also applied to departmental examinations to get eligibilit_v for further promotions. While so, respondent No.2 issued order, dated L7 .12.2024 terminating her from service on the sole ground that she was appointed under local reserved post. She stated that the said termination order was communicated to her on t8.t2.2024.

3. It is further stated that letter, datecl O2.O9.2O23, addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 clearly depicts that she r,r,as provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assistant under local category even though. she is non_ local candidate In the said letter, it is also stated that one - , PSK,J&NNR,J \rp 16420_2024 candidate narnely Sri Ram Babu Mekala, who was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assistant belongs to non-local candidate has withdrawn his application during certihcate verification and said post was kept vacant. It is further stated in the said letter that the petitioner was provisionally selected under local category be switched to non-local category as the said post is still vacant as on date. It is further stated that the respondents having knowledge that she was erroneously selected under local category, the respondents ought not to have to issue appointment order instead of rectifying their mistake prior to her join in the said post. It is further stated that on presumption she was successfully selected and appointed as Junior Assistant, she did not choose to join in the post of Police Constable (Civil) in Department of Police and not attempting any examinations i.e., Group-l Bank jobs etc. No fault of the petitioner, the respondents have thrown her into frnancial and emotional turmoil having complete knowledge that the entire selection process is wrong.

4. Further, from the proceedings, dated 11.07.2024,

26.07.2024 and O2.I2.2O24, It is clear that the respondents !- 4 PSK,J&N-N&J \\T 3AZO_.2024 have decided to de-select the petitioner and appoint another candidate in her place namely Degala Samrajyaln - Therefore, the respondent authorities have complete lcrowledge of erroneous selection process from the beginning not only appointing the petrtioner as Junior Assistant, c,n the other hand they were plotting to de-select her on the ground that she was appointed in u'rong category, without putting her on notice and not following the due process of lar,r'. Therefore the action of the respondent authorities in issuing termination order, dated 17 .12.2024, to the lletitioner is illega1 and arbitrary.

5. Respondent Nos.l and 2 lied cottnter-alhdavit denying the averments made in the affidavit hled in support of the writ petition and it is stated that the total nurnber of posts notified in the category of Junior Assistant irL the unit of learned Principal District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem were

17. Out of which. the first hve posts / I to 5 roslt:r points are in open category, for which both local and non-local candidates can compete and the most meritoriotr:; candidates out of the total lot would be selected. It is state'cl that in the present case, none of the non-local candidates w-ere selected 5 PSK,J&NNR,J 2024 wP -36420 against l"t five roster points / lst five positions as they were Ioss meritorious than the local candidates who competed. It is also stated that the marks secured by the last selected candidate in 1 to 5 roster points i'e., unreserved category is 72 whtle the petitioner secured 60 marks. It is stated that the petitioner was de-selected ald replaced by the next eligible and meritorious candidate, namely Degala Samrajyam, who belonged to local category. The other provisionally selected candidate namely Rambabu Mekala, a non-local candidate, who expressed his unwillingness to join the post was a-[so replaced by the next eligible meritorious candidate than the petitioner, who belonged to local category.

6. It is further stated that the petitioner having not challenged or disputed the factual correctness of impugned decision, her only grievartce is that her serrrices were terminated without giving any opportunity to submit her explanation and without issuing a show-cause notice. It is stated that the termination of the petitioner is not on the ground of misconduct, which would otherwise warrant an explanation from the employee giving her due opportunity to explain her case. 6 PSK.J&NNR"J \yp 36420 2024 - 7 in the present case, the petitioner's selection was inadvertent. She was selected in the categor] reserved for locals in lact she is a non-local. The petitioner does not dispute the factual correctness of the basis of tt:rrnination and thus issuing of notice would have been al empty formalit5r. The petitioner was admittedly not given an o pportunity to rebut the grounds of termination order. Even il-she was given an opportunitl, before issuing the impugned order, no amount of explanation rvould change the decision due to admitted fact that the petitioner being a non-local was inadvertently selected as a local candidate and as such the exercise of affording opportunity would not yield any positive result. The selection of the petitioner was inadvertent and s,he could not have been allowed to continue in the said post urs it is against the eligibility criteria and the selection process, The initial appointment of the petitioner itself is void and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any accrued right to the sraid post and therefore, she is not entitled for aly relief and hcnce, he prays to dismiss the writ petition

8. Heard Mr.R.Anurag, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for - 7 PSKJ&NNR,J wp-36420 2024 the High Court for the State of Telangala, appearing for the respondents.

9. Having perused the entire materia,l on record, the points that arise for consideration before this Beilch a-re (il Tlhether termination order, dated L7.12.2O24 issued by the respondents is valid and justifred and same is liable to be set aside? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into senrice with all consequential benefits

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in response to the notification issued by respondent No.1, the petitioner applied to the post of Junior Assistant. She appeared for written exarnination, qualified and selected for the post of Junior Assistant under local category and posted before respondent No.2 being fully aware that the petitioner being a non-local candidate. Now, under the garb of inadvertence, the respondents cannot terminate her from service having allowed her to work for a period of one year. karned counsel further submits that under the impression that she already appointed as Junior Assistant before respondent No.2, she lost her other opportunities wherever she applied. Learned counsel further submitted that the 8 PSK.J&NNR,J \\P 36420 2024 -r respondents having complete knowledge of erroneous selection of the petitioner under w'rong category from the beginning, have not only appointed her, but on the other hand decided to de- select her on the ground that she was appointed under wrong category, without putting her on notice and without following due process of law. l,earned counsel further submitted that when the pt:titioner was appointed under loca-l category, the mode and method of termination b1' the respondents 1S arbitrary as she was terminated in a highhanded malner without issuing any notice and without following the principles of nirtural justice and hence, he prays to set aside the impugnecl termination order, dated 17.12.2021

11. Learned Standing Counsel for High Court for the State of Telangara appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner having fully aware that she is a resident of Hanumkonda District and she comes untler non-local category, applied to the post of Junior Assistall, under local category and claimed the post which is to be filled up by meritorious candidates of local caldidates. It is stated that the tota-l number of posts notified for the post of Junior L-/ - 9 PSK.J&NN&J wp 36420_2024 Assistant in the unit of learned Principal District Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem were 17 and out of which, hrst five posts / 1 to 5 roster points are open category, for which both local and non-loca-l candidates carr compete and the most meritorious candidates out of the total lot would be selected. In the present case, none of non-local candidate were selected against roster points I to 5 / lst live positions. It is stated that the marks secured by the last selected candidate in I to 5 roster points i.e., unreserved category is 72 ald the petitioner secured 6O marks. He further submitted that the petitioner was de-selected and was replaced by the next eligible and meritorious candidate namely Degala Samrajyam who belongs to the local category. He also further submitted that another provisionally selected candidate namely Rambabu Mekala, a non-local candidate, who expressed his unwillingness to join the post was also replaced by the next eligible and meritorious candidate who belonged to local category. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot take undue advantage of a mistake committed by the respondents and continue in the post. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon''ble l0 PSK.J&Nt'-I{-J wp 36420 2024 - Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sudhir Kumar Singh and othersl ald in AtuI Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.2wherein at paragraph Nos.34, 35,36, 37,38,39,40, the Honble Supreme Court held thus: *34. ht uieut of a,foresaid, this Court is of the uieu that the recommendation of Selection Committee and oppoinlntent of the petitioner made bg the respondent No.4-Committee of l[anagenlent uide oppointmerrt ord.er dated 29.11.1998, in absence o,'"Type Test", both uere/ are de hors the Rules and being so are nullifu ctnd uoid, ab initio and accordtnglg the petitioner has no ight to hoW tl,e post nor he is entiUed to corltirue on the post nor he is entitled to solctry from the State.Exchequt'r. The Supreme Court in Yogesh Kum.ar u. Govemment o.f 35. NCT Delhi and others (2003) 3 SCC 548 held thnt a{,polntment ha.s to be stictlA os per statutory n es. A person nof posses,;ing requtsite qualtfcation and appointment made de-hors of th.e rules witllout following procedure, the appointment is illegal since inception, no es| nuLLity antd no legal right to continue or right ouer the po:;t and length of conlinuous seruice of such illegal appointment utll nct help the petitioner. 36. Vide Mohd. Sartaj a. Sto.te ol U.P. (2006) 2 SCC 315, Sushil Kurnar Dwlaedi u. Baslc Shiksh; Adhikart, Banda (DB) (2OO3) 2 WLBDL' 1216, in Mamtd Mohantl case (supra) and Mohd. Sartaj case (Supra} Committee oJ Management u. State of U.P. (DB) (2009) 2 AIJ 528 il Ll)as hetd that ir]. case, approual is grolted bg the authontA to d person who lacks qualification then it is a :;erious Lapse on the part ol the authoitA, justifuing suitable discipiiLary actrcn against such careless and negligent authoities. Illegal clppointments cannot be regulanzed. TLtere is a distinction betueen int gularity and ittegalitg. Irregulonty can be regutarized but not illegality. ' (2021) 19 Suprcnre Court Cases 706 '2020 scc online All 1677 PSKJ&NNR,J \\p 16420 2024 In Stdte of Kdrnataha rs. .I(GSD Canteen EmPlogees 97. Welfare Ass. (2006) 1 SCC 567, Mamtq Mohantg case (SuprQ and Sushil Kumar Dulaedt case (SuprQ it was held that ang action oJ ott officer or authoitV of tle State uhich is contrary to [au, os in the forts of the present case approuol granted bg the B-S.A in spite of the Jact that tfe petition.ers u)ere not qualifed and there u)as no sanctioned posts, such approual cannot bind the State to pay ttrc sdary from the State Exch.equer (refer; State ol Manipur vs. Y Token Sinsh (2007) 5 SCC 65). 38. ln Pramod Kumar a. II.P. Secondary Educdtion Seruices Commlssion a^d othe"s (2008) 7 SCC 153 Supreme Court held mandamus can be sought ttthen there is a legal right and corresponding dutg upon tlle State Agencg. Petitioners tuho did not possess ualid degree hetd had no right to appointment and, therefore, could. not seek mandamus In Reglonal l/Ianager, Cefltral Bank of India us. 39. Maldhuttka Guntprasad lro,hlr ond others (2O08) 13 SCC 17O Supreme Coun held that a person appointed against a reserued post for S.T. against forged sociol status certificate cannot upon tenn[nation claim to be retained merely on tle ground thfrt tE has uorked Jor ouer 20 Aears. 40. With regard to the other Pleas token bA the leanned coun-sel Ior the petitioner for interfeing in tlle matter and allouing the urit petitiot\ uhich are b tle elfect that oPportunitA of heaing uas not giuen to the petitioner pior to possing of order dated 2l . 1 1. 1998 and the respondent no.2-BSA hr^s no poluer to cancel the oppointment of petitioner, are ancerned this Court is of the vieu that on the said grounds the interference in tLLe matter is not required. It is in uieu of the pinciple to the effect that issuance of d Lurit or quashing/ setting a-side of an ord.er if reuiues a nother pernicious or wrong or illegal order then in tllat euentualitg the urit court slnuld not interkre in the matter and. should. reJuse to exercise its discretionary power conferred upon it under Article 226 oJ tlrc Constttution of India. The writ court should not quosh tte order if it reuiues a urong or illegal order. Vide : Gdd.de Venkdtesutqra Ro.o t. Gouentment o.f Andhro. Prddesh, AIR 1966 SC 828; Mdharald Chintdmani So,ra.n Nath Shahd.eo a. st(lte oJ t2 PSK.J&NNR.J \tp,.36420 2024 - Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 16: AIR 1999 SC 3609: 1959 AIR SCW 3623; M.C. Mehtd a. Union o.f India, (1999) 6 SCC 237: AIR 1999 SC 2583; Mdllikaq'una Mudhzgal Nagappa o. Sta.te ol Kamdtaka, (2000) 7 SCC 238: AIR 2000 SC 2976: 2OOO AIR SCW 3289; and Chandrq Slngh v. State of Rajasthan, i2OO3) 6 SCC 545: AIR 20o.1 SC 2889: 2003 AIR SCW 3518 and Raj Kumar Soni u. Stqte oJ U.P (2007) 10 SCC 635." L2. There is no dispute as to the petitioner applying to the post of the Junior Assistart pursu€rnt to the notification issued by respondent No.1 for appointment to !'arious posts, including the post of Junior Assistant. She app,eared for the examination and selected against l"t five roster points / lst five positions arld respondent No.2 issued appointment letter to the petitioner. A perusal of Ex.P.3 application form filed by the petitioner shows that she made application for the post of Junior Assistant in the Judicial District o1- Bhadradri- Kothagudem as a non-local candidate. Originally, she belongs to Hanumkonda District, comes under non-local category. It is an admitted fact that the peti.tioner never claimed that she is a local candidate. She ;eppeared for computer based examination and selected provisionally subject to satisfaction of eligibility criteria, such as educational qualifications, community, reservation, and local status in accordance with the Telangana Public EmploSrment - l3 PSK.J&NNR.J \vt 16420 2024 (Organization of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 20 18. It is also specifically stated in the said notihcation dated 30.06.2023 that if provisionally selected candidates do not fulfrll the requirements aS mentioned in the notification, the next meritorious candidates will be selected in that slot. It is further stated in the notification that the appointing authority deserves the right to cancel selection of appointment to the post at any stage as per the letter dated 27.07.2023 issued by respondent ,No.l ald directed the learned Principal District Judge Bhadradri- Kothagudem District to issue appointment orders to the proyisionally selected candidates of Junior Assistants only after verihcation of their antecedents by the concerned police and after confirming that there are no adverse remarks against the provisionally selected carididates were notified against the roster points and cycle noted against their nzunes. In the said list, petitioner's narne was shown at Sl.No.2 against roster point No.2 under the category of woman.

13. Further, respondent No.2 addressed a letter, dated O2.O8.2O23, to respondent No.1 calling for information of provisionally selected caldidates of different posts including l4 PSK.J&NNR-J u/p_36420 2024 - the petitioner. in which it is stated that the petitioner was provisionally selected for the post of Junior Assistant as a local candidate. But, as per the study cert.iftcate of the individual she comes under non-local as sht: belongs to Hanumkonda District and treated her as Non-local instead of local. Respondent No. l uide ROC No.ISll/2Otl,3-RC, dated

07.O8.2O23, addressed a letter to respondent No.2 stating that soon after taking a decision against the petitioner and another, they u'ill inform the same for taking further action in matter. Subsequently, uide proceedings Dis.No.39O/ADMN/DCBKGM, dated 14.O2.2024. the learned Principal Distrrct Judge, Bhadradri-Kothagudem issued list of selected candidates including the petitioner for the post of Junior Assistant and after fixing the seniorit5r of the candidates, the petitioner was posted as Junior Assistalt in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam. It is further clarified in the said proceedings that the selected candidates are purely on temporary basis and they are liable to be terminated at any time withor.rt any prior notice or rvrthout assigning any reason. Thereafter, the Registrar (Recruitment) vide its letter datecl Ll.O7 .2024 - 15 PSK,J&NNR,J wp 36420 2024 informed the learned Frincipal District Judge that the High Court having considered his letter had decided to de-list the provisionally selected candidates of Junior Assistants i.e., Sri Ram Babu Mekala and Ms.Moluguri Divya (petitioner-). Further, vide R. O. C. N o. la 1' I / 2O22-RC, dated 02. 12.2024, the respondent No.1 held that considering the letter, dated

26.07.2024, they have decided to provisionally select the candidate viz., Sandhyarani Samandula for the post of Junior Assistant and subsequently deleted her name having ,found her to be non-local and selected Degala Samrajyam the next meritorious candidate in her place and issued appointment order to the said provisionally selected candidate as Junior Assistant provisionally subject to verification of her antecedents by the concerned police. L4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the respondents having admitted that the appointment of the petitioner being a mistake on the part of the respondents and being fully aware that the petitioner being a non-local candidate, in the course of arguments to a question posed by this bench, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents placed the marks obtained by the petitioner along with the 4 16 I'SK.J&NN&J \yp 36420 -2024 - other selected candidate and also the candidates who have been selected in her place, it is found that the petitioner has got less number of marks comparing to other inclividuals, who have been selected after selecting her in the opt:n category of roster point 125. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to non- local. Though she is claiming to be appointed under local category, she wor.rld have an opportunity of b,eing selected under non-1ocal category in the open category'. But, the individuals r,'n'ho were already appointed under the open category are more meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that she got more marks than others cannot be accepted.

15. The other ground raised by the petitioner is that without giving any' notice, opportunity arld without following due process of law, she was de-selected from the post of Junior Assistart and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondents having allowed her to work for a considerable period of nine months and odd and now cannot de-select by cancelling her appointment. 'Ihe aspect of the non-following of principles of natural justice, as seen from the entire record, the appointment letter and thr: notification t7 PSK.J&NN&J wp 36420_2024 which would clearly show that the selection and appointment of the petitioner was only provisional and right is reserved with the respondents that whenever it is found that she is not eligible, the respondents have a right to cancel her appointment at arry point of time without any notice. On the ground that there being a mistake on the part of the respondents, the petitioner being a non-local and less meritorious candidate, the question of accommodating her in the open category does not arise and she cannot claim any equities on the ground that the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice and there is mistake of appointment.

16. Admittedly, the appointment itself being a mistake of fact, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the same and now claim the equities and also claim her position to be restored. Under the present set of facts, no doubt the appointment of the petitioner being irregular due to the mistake and inadvertence of the concerned respondents, rriew of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yogesh Kumar o. @aentment of NCT Delht and othets 3, Mohd. ' (2003) 3 SCC s48 l8 -r PSK,J&NNR-J \vP _36420 _2024 Sartaj a. State of U.Pa and in Sudhir Kumar Singh's case (supraf this bench is of the opinion that the petitioner has no case before this Court to seek interference with the termination order. On examination of entire material on record and rival contentions of both the parties, this bench is of the opinion that there are no grounds to inter{ere with the termination, dated 17 .12.2024 passed by responctent No.1.

17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. (2006) 2 SCC 31s //TRUE COPY// E To

1. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, SC FOR TSHC [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies PSK GJP SD/.A.V.S.PRA :f"::"'" SAD RAR Uecrroru oFpr CER HIGH COURT DATED:1 810312025 I ORDER WP.No.36420 of 2024 ,i1STA;.i' 1 o; 0 s APR 2l]25 * t:) : :. - -'ra -i- 2' 1\ i,i u:/ * ,)" DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS