Telangana High Court
WP(TR)/5665/2017 of C.NAVANITHA Vs The State of Telangana on 31 December 2024
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITIO N(TR) NO: 5665 OF 2017 Between: officer pursuant to proceedings Rc.No. C.Navanitha, W/o. Ramesh, Age 24 years, Occ;
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYOERABAD
TUESDAY, THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENTTHE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVIWRIT PETITIO N(TR) NO: 5665 OF 2017
Between:
C.Navanitha, W/o. Ramesh, Age 24 years, Occ; Un-Employee, Ryo.3-3-185, ChotaTalab, Adilabad, Adilabad District.Talab, Adilabad, Adilabad District.
.....PET|TIoNER
AND
1. The state of rerangana, Represented by its principar Secretary, Environment,-Forests, Science and Technology Dept., Secretariat, AyaeraOii_SOOOZZ. Forests, Science and Technology Dept., Secretariat, AyaeraOii_SOOOZZ. 2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Telingana, nranyaBhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad _SOO0O4.The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Telingana, nranyaBhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad _SOO0O4.
3. The Conservator of Forest, Adilabad, Adilabad District_504001 .
District_504001 .4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District_504001 .The Divisional Forest Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad District_504001 .5. Smt. Sandya Rani, W_/o-. Laxman, Age 24 years, Occ Forest Beat Officer,'O-o/o. Forest Range Office, Nirmal, Adilabid District. (H.T.No. 1}g4i) - 50400.1 .O-o/o. Forest Range Office, Nirmal, Adilabid District. (H.T.No. 1}g4i) - 50400.1 .
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition Under section 226 cpc praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased tocall for the records relating to the selection of sth respondent as forest beatofficer pursuant tothe notification issued by the 2nd respondent videproceedings Rc.No.4441Ol20OglA-2-ll, dated 26.03.2012 and set aside theselection of the sth respondent by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary, abuse ofprocess of law, violation of principtes of natural justice and contrary to theconditions stipulated in the notification and consequenfly hold that the applicantis entitled for selection to the post of forest beat officer in prace of the 5threspondent as the 5th respondent has not participated in the warking test in theinterest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SURENDER REDDYCounsel forthe Respondents No.1 to 4: Gp FOR SERVICES - IThe Court made the following ORDERThe Court made the following ORDER
THE HC'NOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVIW.P(TRl.NO. 5665 0F 2017
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:
this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging theselection of the respondent No.S as Forest Beat Oflicer pursuantto the notification issued by the respondent No.2 videProceedings R. C. No. 444 1 0 / 2OO9 / A-2 -lI, dated 26.03.20 1 2 andto set aside the same by declaring it as illegal, arbitrary andabuse of process of law and contrary to the conditionsstipulated in the notification and to hold that the petitioner isentitled for selection to the post of Forest Beat Officer in place ofrespondent No.5 and to pass such other order or orders in theinterest ofjustice.
2. Brief facts ieading to the filing of the present writpetition are that the petitioner belongs to Adilabad District andhas completed B.Sc., B.Zc., and belongs to BC_D communitlrand was eligible for appointment to the post of Forest BeatOfhcer. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 has issued therecruitment notificarion d,ated 26.03.2O I 2 inviting applicationsfrom the eligible candidates to fill up the post ofFSO/FBO/ABO/THANADAR/pW/BW. It is submitted that in TMD,Jw.P(Trt.No- [566s ][of ][2017]
the notihcation [it ][was mentioned ][that ][the ][selection ][will ][be ][heid]as per [the merit ][obtained ][in ][the ][written ][examination ][and ][those]who qualify [in ][the ][written ][examination ][will ][be ][called ][for ][the]walking test [in ][the ratio ][of ][L:2 ][arrd ][the ][walking test shall ][be of]25 kms for [males, ][and ][16 ][kms for ][women ][candidates ][in ][a ][four]hoursdurationanditisonlyaqualifyingtestandshallnotcarry any [marks. ][It is ][submitted ][that the ][petitioner ][has]submitted [her application ][to ][the post of ][Forest Beat Officer in]Adilabad [District and ][she appeared ][for ][the ][written ][examinalion]and has [secured ][136 marks ][out of ][220' ][Thereafter' ][the]respondent [issued ][a ][notice ][to ][the ][petitioner ][on ][i9'10'2015 ][to]attend for [a ][walking ][test ][to ][be ][conducted on O9'11'2015 ][at ][the]ofliceoftheDivisionalForestofficer,Adilabadat5a.m.,andinthe said [notice ][it ][was ][also ][stated ][that ][the ][list ][of ][candidates]in [the walking ][test ][shall ][be noti{ied ][on ][the ][same day]qualified and the final [selection ][will ][be ][done from amongst the candidates]who have [qualilted ][in ][the ][walking ][test ][based ][on ][the total ][marks]secured in [the ][written ][examination ][duly ][observing ][roster points]and bonus [marks ][wherever applicable ][after due ][scrutiny by ][the]selection [committee. ][It is ][submitted ][that the ][petitioner ][has]appeared [for the walking test ][and ][has qualified ][in ][the ][walking]test and [as ][per ][the merit, ][the petitioner has ][to ][be ][selected ][as]
)
TUD,Jw. a4.No. 566s oi2017
FBO. The respondent No.5, who also [belongs ][to ][BC-D]community, did not appear [for the ][walking ][test, ][however, ][her]narne was figured in the selection [list ][and the ][respondents ][have]selected her in violation of the [conditions ][mentioned ][in ][the]notification. It is further submitted [that ][instead ][of notifying ][the]qualified list of the walking test on the same [day, ][the ][walking]test results hzrve been declared [after ][one week ][of ][the ][walking]test. Therefore, the selection of [respondent ][No.5 ][without]participating in the walking test is illegal [and]arbitrary andhence, the present writ [petition ][has ][been ][filed.]
3. The Learned Government Pleader for [Services]appearing for the respondents No. 1 to 4, relied [upon ][the]averments in the counter affidavit, that the [respondent ][No.5 ][has]secured more marks than the petitioner in the [written]examination and that the respondent [No.S ][had ][submitted ][a]representation on 29.10.2015 with [medical ][certificates ][to ][the]selection committee that she has [undergone ][a ][Caesareal]section operatjon on 23.O9-2O15 and the [doctor ][has advised ][her]not to take strenuous exercise and to take [rest ][for six ][months]and therefore she requested for [postponement ]of the [walking]test. It is submitted that after verification of the documents L
.fMD'Jw.qm,No, 566s ol2017
submitted by the candidate, it [was ][decided ][by the ][Selection]Committee to conduct the walking test [for ][respondent No.5 ][after]the completion of the six month [period and ][thus, ][the ][committee]selected the respondent No.S for the [post of ][forest beat oflicer]subject to the condition that she should [quali$z ][for ][the ][walking]test after the exemption of a six [month ][period ][and ][accordingly,]the respondent No.S has been [appointed ][as ][forest beat oflicer]vide Deputy Director KTR Nirmal [SO ][No'2/2016/N7, ][dated]07 .OL.2OI6 and [posted ]her at [Naldurthy ][beat ][of ][Mamada]Range, subject to the condition that [she should ][attain ][and]qualify the walking test within six months. It [is ][submitted ][that]thereafter, a walking test was [conducted ][for ][the ][respondent]No.5 on 31.03.2016 and she has [qualified ]in [the ][walking ][test]within a period of three hours and [therefore, she ][has ][fulfrlled]the condition and since the petitioner, [had ][secured iesser ][marks]than the respondent No.5, could not [be ][considered ][for]appointment.
4. The respondent No.s has also [filed ][a ][counter]affidavit to this extent, stating [that ][she ][has secured ][144 ][marks]under the BC-D [women ]category [and only due ][to her ][medical]condition, the selection committee [had appointed ][her ][subject ][to]
5TMD,Jw.4T.).No. s66s oJ 2017
her passing ol the walking test and she has [passed ]the sameafter six monlhs. The learned counsel for the [respondent ][No.S]placed reliance upon the [judgment ]of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Others [Vs. State]of Chhattisgarh and Othersr in support of her contentions.5. Having regard to the rival contentions and thematerial on record, this Court hnds that as per the notificationissued by the respondents, the selection process for the posts ofFSO/FBO/ABO/'IIHANADAR/PW/BW was in two parts i.e., thefirst part being the written test consisting of three papers andthe second part was to conduct the walking test arrd the walkingtest is the qualifzing test. Therefore, unless and until thecandidates qualify both in the written test as well as walkingtest, they cannot be offered the appointment letter. In this case,the respondent No.5 has been offered the [job ]without even herquali$,ing in the walking test, it was offered subject to herpassing the '*ralking test. Neither the notilication nor therecruitment rules refer to any relaxation that can be [given ]to thecandidates suffering from any medical or other [problem. ]Therespondent authorities have not been able to demonstrate or I {2o13) 14 scc 494
{
I {2o13) 14 scc 494
{
produce any rule empowering the serection committee as theauthorit5z to relax the conditions of the selection process. Therespondent No.5 has been subjected to ttre walking test after aperiod of six months i.e., even without qualifying in the wa_lking.test she has been appointed to the post. Therefore, it is evidentthat the appointment of respondent No.S vide proceedings datedoz-or.2016 is crearry regal and improper. Even if the selectioncommittee had the power to relax the condition, it could haveissued the appointment letter onry after the respondent No.Shas undergone the quali$ring test and has qualified in the same.Therefore, the appointment of respondent No.S is liable to be setaside. When the respondents have issued tJle notice for thewalking test to be conducted on O9.11.2015 and tl_re respondentNo.S has alregedry made a representation much prior to it i.e.,on 29. 1O.2015, the selection committee, if it were to relax thatcondition, should have been conducted. the walking test aftersome time. Instead, they have conducted the walking test on09. 11.201s and though the respondent No.S has secured moremarks, did not participate in the quali$ring test, she could nothave been selected and therefore, the appointment order in{ favour of the respondent No.5 is illegal, arrd it is accordingly setaside. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 has sEted thgf I
I
7
TUD'Jw.4TtLNo. s66s ol2017
she is a meritorious candidate and she has subsequentlyqualified in the walking test, her appointment may not be setaside and the respondents may be directed to accommodate herin any of the vacancies available or to create a supernumerarypost for the said purpose, if necessary. Therefore, this Courtdeems it frt and proper to permit the respondent No.s to makesuch representation to the respondents and the respondents aredirected to take a decision thereon in accordance with [aw.
6- Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shallbe no order as to costs.
7. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thiswrit petition, shall stand closed.
t,
SD/- A-SRINIVASADDYASSISTA.NT RGI TRAR//TRUE COPY//SEISTIONFICER
To
1. The .Prhcipal Secre_tary, Environment, Forests, Science and TechnologyDept., Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad-500022.Dept., Secretariat, State of Telangana at Hyderabad-500022.2. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, State of Telangana, AranyaBhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad.Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad.
3. The Conservator of Forest, Adilabad, Adilabad District.
District.4. 5. Two The Divisional CCs to GP FOR SERVICES F:orest Officer, Adilabad, Adilabad -1, High Court for District-504001 the State of Telangana at.Hyderabad. [OLIT]Hyderabad. [OLIT]
[OLIT]6. One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl
7. Two CD CopiesSABSRfr
HIGH COURI'
DATED:31 112'12024
ORDERWP(TR).No.5t665 of 2017
ALLOWING THE W.PWITHOUT CC.STS.
10"4<aYr-dd'e
1[H ][e s:f/l][ I6:]((rzJ 2 [ii ];:rt [z$28]o5,+/"I1tEi- P,)