The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board vs Saluvadi Sumalatha and Dodda Mamata

2024 INSC 176 NON REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 16134-16135 of 2022]

THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SALUVADI SUMALATHA & ANR. … RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

M. M. Sundresh, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court of

Telangana confirmed the decision of the Learned Single Judge by allowing

the writ petition filed by respondent no.1, setting aside the recruitment made

by the appellant in favour of respondent no.2 and ordered for redrawing of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2024.03.05 merit list.

17:00:03 IST Reason:

3. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.

1 BRIEF FACTS

4. The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local

Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 came into existence

vide GOMs No. 674 dated 20.10.1975 in exercise of the powers conferred by

Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371D of the Constitution of India, 1950 upon

the President of India. The aforesaid Government Order confers discretion to

the State Government in respect of different departments and categories of

posts to constitute committees for rendering adequate advice to it on the

allotment of persons to State, Zonal and District cadres.

5. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued instructions vide G.O.P No.

763 dated 15.11.1975 highlighting the methodology for filling up the

vacancies. Annexure II of the said instructions which is relevant for the

purpose of deciding the lis underwent an amendment vide GOMs No. 124

dated 07.03.2002 which reads as follows:

“In the said Government, orders.

(1) In the Annexure-II (1) For paragraphs 3 and 4, the following shall be substituted, namely,

“3: The Provisional list shall be divided into two parts. The first part shall comprise 30% of the posts consisting of combined merit lists of locals as well as non-locals and the remaining second part shall comprise the balance 70% of the posts consisting of locals only and the posts shall be filled duly following the rule of reservation.”

2 Thus, as per the amendment to instructions in G.O.P No. 763 dated

15.11.1975, 30% of the posts are to be filled up first on the basis of merit by

both locals and non-locals constituting the first part, and the remaining 70%

is to be filled up with local reservation, subject to Rule of Reservation as per

the Roster Point.

6. Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996

mandates that appointments shall be made in the order of rotation on the basis

of a 100 Point Roster. The category of Scheduled Castes (Women) comes

under Roster Point No.2.

7. The appellant being the recruitment agency issued a Notification No.

03/2018 dated 31.07.2018 inviting applications from eligible candidates for

the recruitment to the post of junior lecturers in Residential Educational

Institutions Societies. As per paragraph V sub-paragraph 4 of the said

notification, the zonal and local reservations shall be followed as per

paragraph 8 of Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local

Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 (GOM No. 674,

dated 20.10.1975) read with GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002. Paragraph VIII

concerns itself with the procedure of selection of which sub-paragraph 4 is of

relevance:

3 “4. The candidates will be selected and allotted to the Residential Educational Institutions Societies in Telangana State as per the option exercised and as per their rank in the merit list and as per zonal preference for allotment of candidates against available vacancies after verification of Certificates, Community and Category wise for the vacancies available as required.”

8. Thus, the candidates were duty bound to exercise their options and the

allotment would accordingly be made as per their rank in the merit list, based

upon zonal preference. In other words, no candidate will be considered to any

other zone not opted for and therefore such consideration is confined among

the ones preferred. For the sake of clarity, if a candidate could not get

allotment in their first preferred zone for want of merit in the zone that they

belong to, they shall be considered in the second preferred option.

9. Respondent nos.1 and 2 belong to Roster Point No.2 (Scheduled Caste

Women). Respondent no.1, being a local, sought her first preference for Zone

VI, while it was the second choice for respondent no.2, after Zone V.

Respondent no.2 on merit obtained 35th rank while respondent no.1 stood at

49th rank.

10. Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition inter alia contending that the ratio

has to be at 40:60, and she being a local with her first preference under Zone

VI ought to have been recruited as against respondent no. 2. The learned

Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition by fixing the ratio at 40:60

and held that there was no basis for fixing the reservation, while respondent

4 no. 2 ought not to have been permitted to be considered under Zone VI, that

being her second preference. Incidentally, it was held that out of the 7

vacancies, 4 vacancies had to be filled by following the rule of reservation,

leaving 3 remaining vacancies for the unreserved category. This view of the

learned Single Judge was approved by the Division Bench forcing the

appellant to approach this Court.

SUBMISSIONS

11. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that both

the Courts have not taken into consideration the amendment made to G.O.P

No. 763 dated 15.11.1975 vide GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002. There were

actually 7 posts out of which 5 were earmarked for local reservation. Out of

the remaining two vacancies, one was to be filled up by Scheduled Caste

Women. Respondent no.1 being ranked below respondent no.2 was not

considered. In any case, there is absolutely no bar for a candidate to be

considered in a different zone, provided that such option is duly exercised.

The said submission is reiterated by the learned counsel appearing for

respondent no.2.

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submitted

that no fair procedure was adopted. The High Court has rightly considered the

ratio and granted the relief. It has not been demonstrated clearly before the

5 High Court as to the logic and reasoning behind the application of 30:70, apart

from earmarking only 2 posts out of 7 for both local and non-local candidates.

DISCUSSION

13. The amendment made to G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975 vide GOMs

No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 does not leave any room for doubt. 30% of the posts

meant for both locals and non-locals have to be mandatorily filled up first

before going for the remaining 70%. Similarly, the Government clarified vide

GOMs No. 924 dated 12.12.2007 that all the departments are duty bound to

complete recruitment process by adopting the 30:70 ratio which reads as

follows:

“All the Departments are hereby direct to maintain 70% of reservation in direct Recruitment to Locals in respect of posts Gazetted after 1975, after the implementation of the provision of Presidential Order, as per the list appended, so as to protect the interests of locals”

Therefore, the High Court fell into an error in not only adopting a wrong ratio

but also fixing 70% first. On a reading of the notification, it is amply clear that

a candidate is not non-suited from being considered in another zone subject to

the only condition that it should form part of the option that she has exercised.

This is exactly what respondent no.2 did.

14. Courts will have to be cautious and therefore slow in dealing with

recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought

6 process has gone into applying the rules and regulations. Merely because a

recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be

extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on

the said recruitment of respondent no.2, but also to numerous others as well.

In such view of the matter, courts are duty bound to take into consideration

the relevant orders, rules and enactments before finally deciding the case. In

this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in Dalpat

Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, (1990) 1 SCC 305 where it was held:

“12. It will thus appear that apart from the fact that the High Court has rolled the cases of the two appointees in one, though their appointments are not assailable on the same grounds, the court has also found it necessary to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and to embark upon deciding the relative merits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the Selection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection Committee which has the expertise on the subject. The court has no such expertise. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered with only on limited grounds, such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Committee or its procedure vitiating the selection, or proved mala fides affecting the selection etc. It is not disputed that in the present case the University had constituted the Committee in due compliance with the relevant statutes. The Committee consisted of experts and it selected the candidates after going through all the relevant material before it. In sitting in appeal over the selection so made and in setting it aside on the ground of the so called comparative merits of the candidates as assessed by the court, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied)

7

15. In the case on hand, we have no iota of doubt that the appellant has

correctly followed the mandate of law. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside

the impugned order passed by the Division Bench and that of the learned

Single Judge of the Telangana High Court. Accordingly, the impugned order

is set aside and the appeals stand allowed by restoring the recruitment made

in favour of respondent no. 2.

16. No order as to costs.

..………………………..J. (A. S. BOPANNA )

…………………………..J. (M. M. SUNDRESH) NEW DELHI;

MARCH 05, 2024

8