Telangana High Court
WP/42745/2015 of K. Yadagiri Vs The Chairman AND Managing Director on 31 December 2015
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.42745 of 2015 Between: K. Yadagiri, S/o.Anjaiah, Aged about 30 years,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OFANDHRA PRADESH
THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN
Present
Between:
K. Yadagiri, S/o.Anjaiah,Aged about 30 years,Occ: Unemployee,R/o. H.No.2-92,Indrakaran Village,Sanga Reddy Mandal,Medak District – 502 329.
.. Petitioner
AND
The Chairman & Managing Director,Singareni Collieries Company Limited,Kothagudem Coillieries – 507 101,Khammam District,Telangana State & another
.. Respondents
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The respondent company issued Employment NotificationNo.2 of 2015 on 28.03.2015 to fill up various categories of postsincluding the post of Turner/Machinist category–I, which is atSerial No.4 in the notification. The total number of vacanciesnotified are 49, out of which 40 posts are reserved for localcandidates and 9 posts are made open to all irrespective of thelocal status. Insofar as reservation in favour of local candidatesare concerned, Adilabad, Karimnagar, Medak and Khammam aretreated as coming within the local category and all other districtsof State of Telangana come within the open competitioncategory. In the selections conducted by the respondentcompany, the petitioner is one of the candidates, whoparticipated in the selection. The petitioner belongs to MedakDistrict and, therefore, he is not a local candidate. Hisparticipation is against unreserved vacancies of 9. In theselections conducted by the respondent company, the petitionersecured 65.55 marks. According to the petitioner, he is No.4 inthe over all Merit List of non-locals and since there were 9vacancies notified to be filled up by non-locals, the petitioner,being the 4[th] meritorious candidate, could have been appointedas one of the 9 open vacancies notified and not appointing thepetitioner is illegal.
2. On perusal of the Merit List filed at Page No.27 asdocument P-5, it is seen that the Merit List is drawn for the 49vacancies notified. The petitioner is not clear as to whether aperson, who secured less merit than the petitioner and who is nota local candidate, is selected against the vacancy earmarked foropen to all categories.
3. In terms of the provisions of the presidential order,60% are reserved for local category and the rest is opencompetition to all persons belonging to the State of Telanganairrespective of their local status. A local candidate is entitled tocompete against the vacancies which are kept open to becompeted by all persons belonging to the State of Telangana. Itis not a reservation provided in favour of non-locals and it doesnot exclude consideration of local candidates, if they secure meritin the selections. Apparently, no person who secured less meritthan the petitioner is appointed against the open to allvacancies. Thus, merely because the petitioner is shown as 4[th]meritorious candidate belonging to the non-local category, thepetitioner cannot seek for a direction for appointment against oneof the open to all category vacancies irrespective of over allmerit. Further more, as seen from the document P-5, though theMerit List is drawn for all the 49 vacancies, none of the selectedcandidates is arrayed as respondent. Even assuming that theclaim of the petitioner is valid, no relief as sought for can begranted in the absence of selected candidate being arrayed as arespondent. Thus, there is no merit in the writ petition.
4. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any,pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________
P.NAVEEN RAO, J
Date: 31[st] December, 2015
KL
Date: 31[st] December, 2015
KL