K. Srinath v. Chairmari and Managing Director

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in tne affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue a wrrt, or oider preferably in the nature of Writ Mandamus/ and declare the action of tne Omciat ilespondents in appointing the Respondent No' 6 as Assistant Engineer ,t ifitguf and contrary io law and contrary to the iudgement of the Honble Srp|."tn! court of lndia rendered in Civil Appeal Nos' 511-51712024 daled 22-O2-iOZq ana quash the same as such and consequently quash the appointment orO"ilssueO by the official Respondents vrde Order No SPOO CGM(HRD) Ms r'r" OeS - dated 07'11-2019 appointing the 6th Respondent as Assrstant Engineer, Erectricar and consequenry decrare that this petitioner is entitled to be appointed as As;is;ni Engineer Elet;trical with effect from the date the 6th Respondent is appoinieJirrom tne date simirarry placed candidates were apoointed *.h ;ir ;;;s;quentiar benefits rike ieniority, arrears of pay etc and consequenfly direct tfre oiticiat Respondents to appoint the Petitioner as Assistant engineei er""tri"ri"r"i". BC-A [;;:i";i#ilffi, the date of the appointment Jf the otn n".p"ri.rt orlfrom the date simirarry placed candidates were appointed errriur *i,r ,rr consequential benefits like seniority, pay etc with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 oF 2018 ^11ri", Petition under. Secti^on_l5] praying that in the circuntstances stated in the affidavit fired i, suoport or tne peiitio'n, in" H,gt, courr mav be preased to drrect the officiat fts5p6ndents to r n s i n e e r E r e ct r i ca r w it n i m m e J, Jt J ; rr" ;i pilft ;,il; ffi "p'p"int-inu. .,CpC o]"iii ,il"J : ; i." i]|, ;:,1,] lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under :section 151. cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the j"titioni t'# Hign Court may bb pleasecl direct the 1st and 2nd-iiespond;rir"i;';;;;int.the. peritioner as Assistant in the existins "t';;;;";;;hwith pendins disposar the ,tJffii,,=r'5,i,1rtcar Counsel for the petitioner: SRI K. LAKSHMT NARASIMHA COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT NO.'t & 2: SRI N. SREEDHAR REDDY (sc FoR TGSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondent No.3 to S: _ - _ - Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI GURRAM.SRII.IIVAS The Court made the following: OROER C '1 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA UIRIT PETITION No.42710 ()F 2018 ORDER: Petitioner initially prayed to deciare the action of the ofhcial respondents in appointing the private respondents as Assistant Engineers (trlectrical) by taking into consideration marks obtained in Part-A r,r'hen the marks secured are equal' instead of taking thc age as criteria, as illegal and arbitrary' Subsequently, petitioner had taken out I'A'No' I of 2024 seeking to implead the 6d' respondent, I'A No' 2 of 2024 to permit him to add grounds 3 and 4 mentioned therein as grounds 4.5 and 4.6 in Writ Petition and I A No' 3 of 2024 seeking amendment of prayer to declare the action of official respondents in appointing the 6th respondent as Assistant Engineer, as illegal and contrary to law and contrary to the judgment of the Hon'blc Supreme Couit in Civil Appeal Nos' 511-517 ot 2024, d.ated 22 'O2 '2024 and quash the same and consequently, declare that petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with effect from the date the 6h respondent was appointed/ from the date similarly-placed \ 2 candidates \vere appointed earlier with all oons,lquential benefits like seniority, arrears of pay, etcclera and also to direct the officitrl re spondents to appoint him as Assistanr Engineer (trlectrical) under BC-A local category.

2. The case of petitioner is that appointntent of the 6d. respondent as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) is illt:gal and contrary to la'w, particularly in the light of the judgmellt of the Hon'ble Suprr:me Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 5t l_S1Z /2024 dated 22 02 ,)024. petitioner relerences several u rit petitions ie. Writ Petition Nos. 18291 of 20 1g and others thal haye br:en filed on similar grorrnds, with the matter reserwed for jurlgmt:nt. The present case is said to be identical in nature. 3. Pe:itioner, who claims to be belongrng to .BC_A, category, applied for the post of Assistant EngirLcer as per Notification dated 11-01_2Oig, accorcling to which, st:lection process was based entirely on written examination. l{e is stated to have securect 61 marks and ranked 42g. Tne gnevanct arises from the sccond and the third list published by resporrdents. The second list includes candidates such as Rank No 133, (Sri K Saiteja, BC-B t,ocal) and Rank No. 141 (Chirtlurl Akhil. BC_B 3 I Local), who secured 61 marks, just as petitioner did' The third listalsoincludesacandidate(BombayDineshChandra'BC-A' Rank No. 398), who also secured 61 marks' According to petitioner, when candidates secured same marks' the one' who is older, should be selected, however' the oflicial respondents' through notification dated O5-05-2018' ignored petitioner's case, instead, called other candidates for verification of certificates which took place on i6-O5-2018 and 17-O5-2018' excluding petitioner from the list Appointment orders were later issued to Private resPondents' Petitioner argues that the action of respondents in not selecting him is unlawful and violation of principles of natural justice. He further emphasizes that notihcation did not contain any specific instruction regarding how marks should be treated in the event of a tie and also there was no provision stating that marks secured in Part A or Part B alone would be considered for tie-breaking ln the absencb of such a provision' ofhcial respondents' decision to introduce this new method of tie-breaking is described as unauthorized and contrarl/ to law' Petitioner refers to Writ Petition No' 18527 of 2O18 and batch \ \ ..,.. 4 which chaUenged selections, wherein the offic;al r:spondents filed counrer affidavit detailing the full inlormarion about candidates who scored 6l marks and their likerrhood of being adversely affected. The name of petitioner founcl clacr: in Table- A, at Serial IVo. g, stating that if petitioner were apporr: ted, other candidates (such as Kanneti Saiteja, Chittluri Al<hil, and Bombay Dinesh Chandra) would be adverselv ;rffec:ed. It is Slated I irer(. jbre, I hese candidates have been ;nadc private respondents in the present writ petition_ petitioner r\,Cdirionally, petitioner Points our that I)orh the anrl the 6ft respondent scored 61 marks in the . He specif callv argues examina tic lt, h:nce, is to the position of Assist:rnt I! rgineer es and merit-based select on l)rocess examination lrnd be.long to BC_A category that he perforrned belter in part_A of the entitled to be appointed (Electrical), as per the rul outlined in the originai notification. 4^. ' ' I.A.Nos. 2 and ll of 2024 and accordingly, prayer was 'fhe 1"t respondent based on the that the relier sought by petitioner was 5 t h Il; Q6L.lr1 uide order dated 09.08 2ott4 a Ilowed trmer ded counter, contends misconr;t.ived and ) I untenable. TGSPDCL had issued the subject Notihcation for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) and Assistant Engineer (Civil) A total of 133 posts were notified; selection process involved a written examination in two parts: Part-A consisting of 80 marks in the relevant englneerlng of 2O marks in General discipline and Part-B consisting selection given to In cases where candidates Awareness and Numerical AbilirY' secured the same aggregate marks' preference was candidates who had higher marks in Part-A' This process was challenged in Writ Petition No 18277 of 2O18 and batch. On ll-12-2ola, this Court allowed the said batch directing to review merit list of selected candidates' giving priority to older candidates in cases where multiple candidates secured the same aggregate marks' The selection should be revised based on this criterion and the exercise was to be completed within four wecks of receipt of Court's order' Aggrieved by the said order' Writ Appeat No 18O of 2O19 and batch was hled, wherein Division Bench bv order dated 27.O2.2O2O, confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge' In Civil Appeal Nos' 5 1 1-5 17 of 2024 ' the Hon'ble Supreme Court I t1 6 delivered a ;udgment ort 22-2-2024, setting asic{e the order in the writ Ap oeal and batch hording that in rerferer rce with selection process was incorrect. It specifically directed accommotlatr.n of eight candidates out of 12 referred ro in the Judgment, u.ithin six weeks from the date ol thc saiC order, However, it is made clear that these eight persons were to be given appoinl.men[s within the specified time frar ne and petitioner in tJ-re present case was not part of thc judgment ol the Suprerne Oourt, hence, he could not compare ltimsclf those 12 persions. petitioner,s claim for the l>cnefir of the Supreme Ctour!'s order was rejected as he was not par1. ol. the group of candiclates covered by the judgment. ,with Acl<iitionally, it is stated, the 6tr. responden t liled Writ Petition No. 1g527 of 20lg challenging the selcction process wlrich was allowed on 24_lO_2O1g directir..g the respondents to issue an appointment order lo hrrn as As.iistant Engineer (EJectrical). This order was later challenged in W A. No. 777 of 2O 19, and in view of non_implementalion, tre 6(h respondent liled C.C. No. 207 of 2019. As a resull, rhe oflicial respondents issued proceedings No. SPOO CGM (HRD) Ms. No. 6 7 635, dated 7 -ll-2olg, appointing the 6th respondent as Assistant Engineer. Recording the same' Writ Appeal No' 177 of 2019 was dismissed as infructuous by order daLed 27 -O2-2O2O ' Hence, petitioner could not also compare himself with the 6fi respondent. Therefore, Petitioner's claim was without merit' It is clarihed that there were no vacancies available in BC-A loca1 category for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the subject Noti{ication and any vacancy that arises due to resignation would be carried forward to the next recruitment process as per G'O' Ms No' 81' dated 22-02-1997 ' Consequently, petitioner was not entitled to appointment under the said notihcation' The 6h respondent also filed counter stating that he 6. applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) as per the Notification dated 11-01-2O18' and participated in the written examination. Both hrmself and petitioner secured equal marks of 61, however, he is nearly two years older than petitioner' On coming to know that respondent corporation intended to select candidates based solely on their marks in Part-A of the examination, without considering the age factor' the 6s 1 ) \ 8 responden[ hled Writ Petition No. 18527 of 201g, wherein official resoon<lents filed a counter stating that one BC-A Open Point remain,:,1 unfilled and he could be appointed to that vacancy. ()n 2tA-1O-2O 18, the learned Single Judge i-.sued a final orde-r rlirecting the official respondents to issue appointme;-rt orders to the 6th respondent as Assistant E ngincer (trlectrical). Fzrilure to comply with the said direction pr:mpted petitioner to hle Contempt Case No. 2O7 of 20 lg. SimultaneousJl , olficial respondents hled Writ Appeal No 177 of 2019, challer-rging the learned Single Judge,s order. Dunng this time, the olfic;zLl respondents issued appointment orders to thc 6tr, responclent on O7 77-2079, as per proceedings SpD() CGM (HRM) Ms. No. (r35. Further, it is stated that when ofhcial respondents hled Writ Appcal No. 18O of 2O 19 and batch contesting thr: order of the learnecl Single Judge in Writ petition No. 1a277 oi 20 1g, learned counsil lor the 6ft respondent informed the Division Bench tha t his <;lient had already been appointed ancl req,rested to separate this Appeal from the above batch. The Division Bench granled this request and dismissed W.A. No. 177 o 2Ol9 9 6 as infructuous, as the 6t]' respondent had already been appointed on 07- 1 l-2}lg and completed ne arly five years of servlce The 6th respondent argues that the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not nullify his appointment order as the judgment in Writ Appeal No' 177 of 2Ol9 was not questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court' and no action has been taken to challenge the orders made in that case' Therefore' he contendsthatpetitioner.srequesttochallengehisappointment lacksmerit,aSthepetitioner'scaseisnotsupportedbyany ruling from the Supreme Court Furthermore' the order in Civil Appeal Nos. 5 1 1-517 of 2024 , dated 22-02-2024 ' did not impact the6hrespondent,sappointment.ThesupremeCourt,sdecision wasaimedatcontinuingtheoriginally-appointedcandidates without interruption and directing appointment of eight elderly candidates, but the case of the 6m respondent was not included in that batch and was not challenged in the Appeal' It is asserted. that petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs sought' as Writ Appeal No. 177 ol 2019, which involves the 6ft respondent' waq dismissed as infn-rctuous and appointment of the 6h \ i l lL l, l0 responde nL iomains valid. He therefore, prays that Wri t petition be dismissec 7 ln the rejoinder, judgment irr Civil Appeal petitioner states thar in the Nos. 511-S17 of 2024, dared 22-02 2orl,4, the Hon,ble Supreme Court clarified that in cases of a tie tn mir rks during recruitment, preference must be given to candidittes, who secured higher marks in part_A (l.he core subject), and r)ot based on age. This ruling overndes tho earlier decision of rhe High Court that considered age as tte breaking factor, provid,.g a legar basis for petitioner,s claim. Therefore he raised aciditional grounds to challenge the selection and appointme.t .r' thc 6rh respondent. petitioner reiterates :hat he applied for th e r pos t of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) uncler Notification Nri. O1 of 201g, securing 61 marks in the ,vritten examination, rvith a rankin g of 42g. He emphasizes tha t both himself ancl the 6rh respondent secured 61 marks in total, with 49 and 48 rnark s respectively in part A. According to peti,ioner, this difference in marks in part_A makes him the rightful candidate for sclection over the 6e respondent. .-._ 1l Petitioner argues that appointment of the 6m respondent is contrary to the prescribed iegal framework and the Supreme Court's judgment, and as such' it is unsustainable in law. He also disPutes the assertion of the 6ff resPondent regarding continuation of the originally-appointed candidates lt is contended that the Supreme Court's ruling made it clear that preference must be given to candidates with higher marks in Part A and since he scored higher marks in Part A' he should have been selected over the 6m respondent. The 6m respondent,s appointment cannot stand simply because it was made based on a concession by the official respondents' According to petitioner, such a concession does not override the law declared by the Supreme Court' He challenges the argument lhat appointment of the 6th respondent was not contested before the Supreme Court on the ground that 1aw declared by the Apex Court is binding upon all individuals' regardless of whether they were parties to the case or not' Thus' he insists that the law should apply in his case and he should be appointed as the rightful candidate. ) \ I I t2

8. Fleard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learnet[ counsel for petitl,lne r as well as Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learneci Senior Counsel on l;,:hal[ of Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned Sanding Counsel for the rcspondent Company and Sri Gurram Srinivas, learned counsel f()r t'le 6d1 respondent.

9. IJpon perusal of pleadings and submissions made by both t he ;:arties, this Court linds that selection procedure followed by the official respondents was in accordance with the guidelincs s t_.( citied in the Notification. The method of ranking candidates;, itcluding tie_breaker rules, was trans Darently outlined. witL preference given to higher marks in part-A (Engineerir-rg s,ubjects) in the event of equal marks. .lhe breaking s\st.m, which gave preference to canclidates who secured highe.r marks in Section _A when marks rvere irlentical in both ser:tior s, was consistent with the job requirements and the lechnical n.rrure of [he position. tie_

10. Frrrrhermore, in the judgment in C.A. Nos. 511_517 of 2024 r>n .,vhich basis, petitioner seeks to can( el the appointment c)f the 6th respondent, the Hon,ble supremt,, court 6\served that Cecision of the Division Bench as well as the \ 1i learned Single Judge of the High Court in interfering with the selection process is not correct' However' since additional affidavits and a statement of employment position was hled by respondent company, the original appointments which were made by respondent company on 26 'O5 '2018 pursuant to the Notifrcation continued despite institution of Writ Petition as there was no interim order' Their employment continued even after the Single Bench and the Division Bench heard and disposed of Writ Petitions as well as Writ Appeals At the time of admission of Civil Appeal' the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 3O.O4.2O2O stayed the impugned order' It observed that the upshot of these proceedings is that appellants who were appointed on 26'05'2018 were continued to function on their respective posts till date' Therefore' the appellants who were originally-appointed shall continue in service without anY the unsuccessful Petitioners are interruPtion. Insofar as concerned,outofthem,respondent_companysubmittedthatin SI.Nos. 8,ll,l2 (Routhu Anil Kumar' Chowan Vindu and Bhattu Swati) cannot be appointed for the reason that they are not qualified and are outside the zone oI consdieraiton even as per ') )-\\ J t4 (-' the orcters ot' the High Court. Out of the remaining pr:titioners, G. Shanker, S1.No.4 has been appointed and is rvork;ng, thus, there are, on,1, eight persons whose appointments are in issue. .Based or: the additional affidavit Iiled on behalt of resl)ondent _ compan)., thr'se eight persons can be accommoclated a,d orders of appoir: tment can be given if Court considers it apl.rropriate. Hence, the S;upreme Court directed that these eight persons should br: given appointment within a period of slx weeks from the date of r-eceipt of a copy o[ the said order Ad mittedly, petitioner was not part of the group of candidates couered by that judgment. The Supreme Court,s order specifically addressed .ccommodation of g candidates, hence, lt ci,tnnot be extended to petitionsp'5 64s6. 1 1 . A.sr regards the claim of appointmen t of the 6th respondent s concerned, as the appointment wa:; made following the crder ir1 Writ petition No. 1g527 of 2C 1g and subsequent orders in Contempt Case No. 2OT o1.2019 and he was senrtng Ure company from 2Ol9 and the order in Writ I't7 of 20729 was not challenged in the S upreme Court, his appointment order attained finality. Hence, this Appeal No 15 Court also finds that official re spondents are right in prioritizing candidates based on marks in Section-A, given the technical nature of the role of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Their decision to adopt this methodoloS' was based on sound reasoning and in accordance with the organization's needs. There is no merit in the Petitioner's claim that the ranking system was unlawful or arbitrary. The Writ Petition lacks merit, therefore, is liable to be dismissed. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASS ST NT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER to SRI K LAKSHM to SRI GURRAM S to SRI N SREEDH Copies I NARASIMHA, Advocate IO RLNIV S, Advocate tOPUbl AR REDDY (SC FOR TGSP PUCI DCL) [OPUC]

72. costs. 1?) closed One CC One CC One CC Two CD BN BS To, 1 2 J 4 6 HIGH COURT DATED:05 t03t2025 ORDER WP.No.42T10 of 2018 .z-a ;TA r{: 2 7 l'l/rfl 2025 7 C, o ,+ * *' rCH", -i,:--. ....-: DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G)EA %k l I I I