Telangana High Court
Vilasagaram Pranay vs The State Of Telangana on 26 December, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
WRIT PETITION Nos.26038, 23775, 23907, 28488,
28576, 32482 and 32978 OF 2024
COMMON ORDER (Per Hon'ble Justice Sujoy Paul):
In these batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the legality, validity, propriety and constitutionality
of G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 08.02.2024, whereby G.O.Ms.No.55 dated
25.04.2022 was amended, and G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019
are called in question. The vires of Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of The
Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (Rules of
1996) is also called in question.
2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts necessary for
adjudication of these matters are as under:
25.04.2022 – G.O.Ms.No.55 was issued which deals with
recruitment and pattern of examination for Group-I services.
26.04.2022 – Notification No.4/2022 was issued inviting
application for 503 vacancies.
13.01.2023 – Result of first preliminary examination was
declared followed by result of second preliminary
examination.
23.09.2023 – Result of preliminary examination was
questioned in W.P.No.15811 of 2023 and the same was
allowed by directing to re-conduct the preliminary
examination.
2
27.09.2023 – Order passed in W.P.No.15811 of 2023 was
unsuccessfully challenged in W.A.No.942 of 2023.
SLP was filed by the Telangana Public Service Commission
(TGPSC) assailing both the orders passed in W.P.No.15811 of
2023 and W.A.No.942 of 2023.
08.02.2024 – The impugned G.O.Ms.No.29 was issued
amending G.O.Ms.No.55.
19.02.2024 – Above mentioned SLP was withdrawn by
TGPSC.
19.02.2024 – The above notification No.4/2022, dated
26.04.2022, was cancelled.
19.02.2024 – New recruitment notification No.2/2024 as
per G.O.Ms.No.29 was issued.
09.06.2024 – Preliminary examination was held.
13.06.2024 – Preliminary key published.
17.06.2024 – Objections to the key were invited.
24.06.2024 – Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) sheets were
made available.
07.07.2024 – Final key was published.
07.07.2024 – List of short listed candidates in the ratio 1:50
in order of merit was published.
31.07.2024 – W.P.No.21239 of 2024 was filed challenging
the notification dated 2/2024, dated 19.02.2024 and also
the key. Prayer to conduct exam as per Notification
No.4/2022 was also made.
15.10.2024 – W.P.No.21239 of 2024 was dismissed.
18.10.2024 – W.A.Nos.1188 and 1190 of 2024 challenging
the order dated 15.10.2024 in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 were
dismissed.
3
06.12.2024 – SLP (C) No.27790 of 2024 challenging the
orders of this Court in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and
W.A.No.1190 of 2024 was dismissed.
Contentions of the petitioners:
3. In W.P.No.23775 of 2024, Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri Palle Srinivas Reddy, urged that as per
the directions contained in the order of this Court in
W.P.No.15811 of 2023 affirmed in W.A.No.942 of 2023, the only
option left with TGPSC was to ‘re-conduct’ the examination. If
TGPSC intended to conduct a new examination, appropriate
direction should have been taken from this Court. In the teeth of
direction of this Court to re-conduct the preliminary examination,
cancellation of earlier notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022
and issuing new notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024 is bad
in law. Secondly, in the event of re-conduct of examination, the
respondents were required to adhere to the same number of
vacancies whereas pursuant to new notification No.2/2024, they
have enhanced the number of vacancies from 503 to 563, thereby
enlarged the zone of consideration, which is impermissible. This
amounts to change of rule of game after commencement of the
game. Reliance is placed on a recent Constitution Bench
judgment of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v.
4
Rajasthan High Court 1. Criticizing G.O.Ms.No.29, dated
08.02.2024, it is argued that the reason for bringing this GO is
bad in law. The judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Public
Service Commission v. Baloji Badavath 2 cannot be a reason to
bring G.O.Ms.No.29. The other reason assigned is pendency of
certain cases before this Court which cannot be a valid reason to
introduce impugned G.O.Ms.No.29.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further urged that in previous round
of litigation i.e., W.P.No.3048 of 2023 wherein G.O.Ms.No.55,
dated 25.04.2022, was called in question, the respondents filed
their counter and supported the said GO. They even supported
the ratio of 1:50 by highlighting that it is highest in the country.
In this backdrop, there was no justification in amending
G.O.Ms.No.55 by introducing G.O.Ms.No.29. The judgment of
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kishor Choudhary v. State of
M.P. 3 was referred to contend that the view taken in the said
judgment is affirmed by the Supreme Court in Deependra Yadav
v. State of Madhya Pradesh 4. It is urged that in view of
judgment of the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav v. The State of
1
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184
2
AIRONLINE 2009 SC 624
3
2022 SCC OnLine MP 5442
4
(2024) 6 SCR 36
5
Uttar Pradesh 5, if reserved category candidates secure more
marks than the last selected general category candidate, they are
entitled to secure a berth as general category candidate at every
stage of selection. The action of the respondents runs contrary to
this settled method.
5. Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
Palle Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.23775 of 2024 referred to certain paragraphs of judgment
of Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar 6,
Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar 7 and Meeta Sahai v.
State of Bihar 8 to contend that the estoppel is not coming in the
way of the petitioners in a case of this nature, where arbitrariness
is writ large and certain errors in the selection process could be
gauged only during participating in the selection process. For this
purpose, recent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Abhimeet Sinha v. High Court of Judicature at Patna 9 was
referred.
5
AIR 2021 SC 233
6
(2017) 4 SCC 357
7
(2010) 12 SCC 576
8
(2019) 20 SCC 17
9
(2024) 7 SCC 262
6
6. Pertinently, during the course of hearing Dr. Aditya Sondhi,
learned Senior Counsel and Sri Srinivas, party-in-person in
W.P.No.32978 of 2024 provided a ‘web-note’ published by TGPSC
relating to present recruitment. A note was also handed over to
the Court by another counsel regarding the ‘decoding of web-note’
prepared by certain petitioners. It is submitted that the
calculation of vacancies even as per ‘web-note’ runs contrary to
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024. If G.O.Ms.No.55, dated
25.04.2022, is followed, it will take care of principles laid down by
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Kishor Choudhary
(supra), which is in consonance with law laid down by the
Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav and Deependra Yadav (both
supra).
7. Sri E. Madan Mohan, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri M. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.26038 of 2024, borrowed the aforesaid argument, and in
addition, submitted that the ratio of 1:50 has been grossly
breached. The vacancies must be filled up category wise. This
includes ‘social’ as well as ‘special’ reservation category. The ratio
of 1:50 needs to be applied category wise and not enbloc. For
example, if 209 general category posts were notified as per 1:50
7
ratio, 10450 persons could have been called up for consideration.
Likewise, in every category, same formula should have been
applied. However, the present number shown by TGPSC makes it
clear that 3232 candidates were admitted beyond the said ratio.
While undertaking aforesaid exercise, meritorious reserved
category candidates may be placed in reserved quota, whereas
they should have secured berth in general category. To buttress
this argument, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra
Sawhney v. Union of India 10 was referred. By placing reliance on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission 11, it was contended that
the judgments prescribed the procedure/steps of selection. The
respondents are not acting in consonance with the principles laid
down therein.
8. Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of the Rules of 1996 were questioned
by contending that G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 22.07.2019, was issued
whereby clauses (a) and (b) were substituted in Rule 22(2). So far,
prescription of 4% reservation to handicapped/special category is
concerned, learned Senior Counsel fairly urged that he has no
objection to such prescription because the same is in consonance
10
(1992) 3 SCC Supp. 217
11
(2007) 8 SCC 785
8
with Section 34 of The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016 (Disabilities Act). The eyebrows are raised on Rule 22 (2) (a)
and (b) of the Rules of 1996 on the point that roster points were
prescribed for special categories, whereas as per the judgment of
Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), such horizontal reservation must
cut across categories and cannot be governed by roster points.
The judgment of A.P. High Court in M.Reddi Bhaskar Reddy v.
State of Andhra Pradesh 12 was referred to support the aforesaid
argument. Similarly, executive instructions issued by the
Government about roster point were also relied upon.
9. Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.32482 of 2024, urged that TGPSC being an independent
constitutional body must conduct the examination on
constitutional principles and not on political considerations. He
submits that previous notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022
was issued by the previous Government ruled by a different
political party. The said notification was illegally cancelled in
alleged ‘public interest’, whereas it is against the public interest.
By placing reliance on the judgment in State of Tamil Nadu v.
12
AIR Online 2021 AP 34
9
K.Shyam Sunder 13, he urged that correction of mistake or
improvement from previous policy of Government is although a
possible exercise it should not be undertaken on political
considerations. The whole attempt of new Government in issuing
a new notification is to take credit of the recruitment by extending
the zone of consideration. This being arbitrary, hits Article 14 of
the Constitution. He also relied on the argument advanced by Dr.
Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel.
10. By placing reliance on State of Karnataka v. All India
Manufacturers Organization 14 and K.Shyam Sunder (supra), he
submitted that existence of power and the manner in which power
is to be exercised, are two different facets. The power used in bad
faith for improper reasons cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.
Therefore, G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024 must be declared as
unconstitutional and discriminatory in as much as one group of
people i.e., O.C, B.C-B and B.C-D are benefitted beyond their
limits of 1:50 ratio while others were restricted in as much as
MRCs of those categories.
13
2011(8) SCC 737
14
AIR 2006 SC 1846
10
11. Lastly, Sri J. Sudheer, learned counsel for petitioners in
W.P.No.32482 of 2024 submits that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated
08.02.2024, was uploaded on 06.08.2024. The G.O.Ms.No.96,
dated 22.07.2019, is called in question only in W.P.No.32482 of
2024. Although, the petitioners are not handicapped persons,
they are aggrieved because the roaster points are given to special
reservation quota which is impermissible. The whole selection
process is a fraud on the constitution.
12. Sri S. Srinivas and Sri Ashok Kumar, party-in-persons in
W.P.Nos.32978 and 23907 of 2024 respectively and Sri J.
Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.32482 of
2024 urged that in the manner candidatures are being called
there will be favourable representations of certain categories of
candidates at the cost of other communities.
13. Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel representing
Ms. K. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.28488 of 2024, also borrowed the argument of Senior
Counsel, and in addition, urged that in view of judgment of Pitta
Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narsaiah Zangiti 15, new vacancies and
persons who became eligible on issuance of subsequent
15
2006 (1) SCC 261
11
notification dated 19.02.2024 cannot be permitted to be filled up.
The judgment of Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan 16 was
highlighted to show that rule of reservation must be applied
respective category wise at every stage of selection.
14. Ms. K. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.28488 of 2024 submits that as per the notification, new
vacancies could have been added through ‘addendum’ and not by
issuing fresh notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024. The
selection process is always subject to constitutional principles and
estoppel cannot be a hurdle.
15. In W.P.No.28576 of 2024, learned counsel borrowed the
previous arguments. The written submissions are filed in
W.P.No.28576 of 2024 by Sri L. Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri Kavipurapu S.V.K.N. Mukhendu Kaushik, learned
counsel for the petitioners. In these submissions, most of the points
mentioned hereinabove are again reiterated. In nutshell, it is canvassed
that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024 deprives meritorious reserved
category candidates to occupy the position in merit list of general
category candidates. The short listing method adopted by the TGPSC
runs contrary to the Presidential Order and even G.O.Ms.No.29. The
16
1996 (11) SCC 742
12
delay and latches cannot be basis for mechanical dismissal of the Writ
Petitions because this Court is guardian of Fundamental Rights under
the Constitution. Lastly, it is submitted that the whole selection needs
to be conducted afresh as per un-amended G.O.Ms.No.55, dated
25.04.2022, by conducting a uniform mains examination for all the
selected candidates without recourse to normalization. In support of
these submissions, certain judgments are relied upon. The conflicting
stand of the State in its counter is also highlighted and reliance is
placed on an unreported judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. K. Prasad17.
Contentions of the respondents:
16. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC,
by taking this Court to the data mentioned in the ‘web-note’
submits that a sizable number of candidates participated in the
preliminary examination of impugned selection pursuant to
notification dated 19.02.2024 and could not be selected. Such
failed candidates cannot be permitted to assail the rule,
notification or G.O.Ms.No.29 and 96. More-so, when the petitions
and appeals challenging the notification dated 19.02.2024 and
seeking restoration of previous notification No.4/2022, dated
17
Civil Appeal No.9140 of 2013, dated 07.10.2013
13
26.04.2022 have been dismissed by this Court and Supreme
Court has also declined interference. Moreover, the candidates
who are successful in the preliminary examination have not laid
any basis in their pleadings how they can be termed as ‘person
aggrieved’. Thus, on both counts, these petitions may be
dismissed.
17. He further submitted that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024
is in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Baloji Badavath (supra). The petitioners have not assigned any
reason much less justifiable reason for belatedly filing these
petitions. In the present batch of petitions, W.P.No.23907 of 2024
was filed on 23.08.2024, whereas all other connected matters were
filed thereafter. Since the petitions filed in previous round are
dismissed challenging notification and recruitment process of
same selection, these petitions may not be entertained. Reliance
is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar
(supra) to contend that after a gap of few months, the petitions are
filed and on this score alone, the petitions may be dismissed. The
judgment of Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. G.
Hemalatha 18 is referred to show that the instructions issued by
18
(2017) 4 SCC 357
14
TGPSC are mandatory in nature. Thus, no fault can be found in
the selection. He referred the judgment in Kishor Choudhary
(supra) to contend that it is totally based on different facts and
rules and has no application in the instant case.
18. Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for
State, borrowed the argument of learned Standing Counsel for
TGPSC, and in addition urged that the petitioners have not stated
in their petitions as to how they are ‘person aggrieved’ and how
their fundamental rights are infringed. In absence thereof, the
attack to G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 08.02.2024, G.O.Ms.No.96 dated
22.07.2019 and Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of the Rules of 1996 cannot
be entertained. By taking this Court to the entire journey from
03.02.1967 when G.O.Ms.No.103 was issued, till issuance of
G.O.Ms.No.29, Sri Rahul Reddy urged that the GOs were
issued/modified from time to time to bring them in tune with the
law laid down by the Courts. No fault can be found in the said
exercise. On more than one occasion, he submits that every
candidate as per his own merit will be considered as per the
Rules. If a reserved category candidate has secured more marks
than last selected general candidate, he will certainly secure a
berth in general category. The principles laid down in the
15
judgment of Kishor Choudhary, Deependra Yadav and Saurav
Yadav (all supra) are not violated.
19. He has placed heavy reliance on State of M.P. v. Nandilal
Jaiswal 19 to highlight the impact of delay in challenging the
selection and G.Os. He also placed reliance on the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar (supra) on which reliance is
placed by learned Standing Counsel for TGPSC. The judgment of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in S.Jaffer Saheb v. State of
Andhra Pradesh 20 is referred to show that GOs were issued from
time to time as per the principles laid down by the Courts.
FINDINGS:-
20. At the outset, we deem it proper to deal with the objection of
the learned counsel for the State and TGPSC relating to the aspect
of delay and impact of decision of the first round of litigation
initiated through W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024. It is not in
dispute that the same Group-I selection initiated through
notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022 was subject matter of
challenge in W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 on various
19
(1986) 4 SCC 566
20
1984 SCC OnLine AP 218
16
grounds. The relief claimed by the petitioners therein is worth
noticing. The same is reproduced for ready reference:
“Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed
therewith, the High court may be pleased to (a) call for the
records pertaining to Web-Note dated 19.02.2024, through
which earlier Notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2022
was cancelled and the consequential second notification
No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 and set them aside as bad
illegal, unfair, unsustainable, unconstitutional, besides being
contrary to public interest and contrary to the directions of
this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.15811 of 2023 dated
23.09.2023 as affirmed by the Division Bench in
WA.No.942 of 2023 dated 27.09.2023 and consequently direct
the 1st respondent/Public Service Commission to conduct
fresh preliminary examination in pursuance of
notification No.04/2022 dated 26.04.2024 (b)
alternatively declare that 503 vacancies notified in
pursuance of first Notification dated 26.04.2022 be
confined to those who have applied and participated in
pursuance of the said notification and consequently direct
TGPSC to segregate 563 vacancies into 503 old vacancies
and 60 new vacancies and confine consideration
separately based on their eligibility by further holding the
action of public service commission in clubbing both old
and new vacancies and expanding the competition by
including ineligible candidates as bad illegal and
unconstitutional (c) declare the extension of time by two
days beyond 14.03.2024 to apply in pursuance of notification
No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 granted by the public service
commission leading to unnecessary expansion of the
competition and aiding those did not apply within time at the
cost of those who have applied within time as bad, illegal,
unsustainable, beyond competence and unconstitutional and
consequently set aside the second notification dated
19.02.2024 or to delete from the competition, those who
have applied beyond 14.03.2024 (d) declare the action of PSC
in prescribing 10 percent reservation in the second
notification No.02/2024 dated 19.02.2024 for 503 vacancies
as well though G.O.Ms.No.33 issued on 30.09.2022 is
prospective as bad, illegal, unfair and consequently direct PSC
to confine l0 percent reservation for ST for the newly notified
60 vacancies only, (e) hold the preliminary examination held
17on 09.06.2024 as illegal and unsustainable in view of
innumerable the flaws/ blunders in the setting of question of
paper and/or incorrect answers and consequently direct the
TGPSC/1st respondent to conduct fresh preliminary
examination (f) by issuance of Writ, Order or Direction, more
particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. Indisputedly, the recruitment notification No.2/2024, dated
19.02.2024, was issued in furtherance of G.O.Ms.No.29, dated
08.02.2024. The notification No.2/2024 contains a stipulation
that it was issued as per G.O.Ms.No.29.
22. A microscopic reading of prayer made in W.P.No.21239 of
2024 shows that the petitioners therein prayed for setting aside
the second notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024 and prayed
for restoration of notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022. It was
further prayed that issuance of notification No.2/2024, dated
19.02.2024 runs contrary to the directions of this Court in
W.P.No.15811 of 2023 decided on 23.09.2023. Further, direction
prayed for was to conduct fresh preliminary examination in
pursuance to notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022. It was
prayed that the selection should be confined to 503 vacancies
notified in pursuance to first notification dated 26.04.2022. A
prayer to segregate the vacancies was also made. It was also
18
specifically prayed for to set aside the second notification dated
19.02.2024.
23. The Writ Court by common order dated 15.10.2024
dismissed the W.P.No.21239 of 2024 by recording the following
finding:
“10. …Thus, after a lapse of six months from the date of
cancellation of old notification, the petitioners
approached this Court without assigning any reasons for
delay, much less, day-to-day delay. If the petitioners in
W.P.No.21239 of 2024 are really aggrieved by the cancellation
of notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022, through web
note dated 19.02.2024, they ought to have approached this
Court and challenged the same at the earliest point of time
itself. Though the delay on the part of the petitioners appears
to be only six months, but, in a matter of this nature, the
day-to-day delay matters and further the petitioners failed
to explain even a single reason for the delay in
approaching this Court. Therefore, on this ground alone, this
Court is not inclined to entertain Writ Petition No.21239 of
2024, without adverting to the other grounds raised
therein,…”
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. Admittedly, this order of the learned Single Judge was
unsuccessfully challenged in W.A.Nos.1188 and 1190 of 2024 and
the Division Bench of this Court while affirming the order of the
Writ Court relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case
of Ashok Kumar (supra).
25. Admittedly, SLP (C) No.27790 of 2024 was dismissed in
limine by order dated 06.12.2024 by the Supreme Court, wherein
19
the order of this Court in W.A.No.1190 of 2024 was called in
question.
26. A conjoint reading of the above order of the Writ Court and
one which is passed in Writ Appeal, which are relating to same
Group-I selection, which is subject matter in the instant batch
shows that the Court declined to entertain the petition on the
ground of delay in approaching the Court. It was poignantly held
that the delay on the part of the petitioners may be of only six
months, but in matter of this nature, day-to-day delay matters and
the petitioners failed to explain even a single reason to explain the
delay in approaching this Court. It is noteworthy that Sri J.
Sudheer, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.32482 of
2024 urged that G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024, was not
uploaded till 16.08.2024. Thus, this fact satisfies the aspect of
delay in filing the petitions. We do not see any merit in this
contention for twin reasons. Firstly, the notification No.2/2024
was admittedly published on 19.02.2024, which gives reference to
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024. Thus, in February, 2024 itself,
the candidates were made aware that this notification No.2/2024
is founded upon G.O.Ms.No.29 and nothing prevented them to
promptly file the Writ Petition and pray that the said G.O.
20
allegedly not available in public domain, be requisitioned by the
Court and interfered with. No attempts were made to obtain
G.O.Ms.No.29 through Right to Information Act, 2005,
immediately after noticing about it through notification
No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024. Secondly, there is no proof filed
along with W.P.No.32482 of 2024 regarding non-availability of
G.O.Ms.No.29 on the portal. Such proof cannot be entertained if
filed through written submissions. Sri J. Sudheer, learned
counsel for the petitioners along with written submissions for the
first time filed photocopy of the portal to show that G.O.Ms.No.29
was uploaded only on 16.08.2024. In absence of filing any proof
with the petition, the respondents had no opportunity to rebut the
same. The Apex Court in Pandit M.S.M. Sharma v. Shri Sri
Krishna Sinha 21, Arti Sapru v. State of J&K22 and Ashok Lanka
v. Rishi Dikshit 23 opined that the principle grounds and more
particularly proof relating to facts must be pleaded and placed
with the Writ Petition. If it is pleaded even in rejoinder, it cannot
be entertained. Thus, at this stage, this document (alleged
photocopy of portal) cannot be relied upon.
21
AIR 1959 SC 395
22
(1981) 2 SCC 484
23
(2006) 9 SCC 90
21
27. The chart mentioned herein below shows the dates of filing
of petitions challenging the same impugned Group-I recruitment
notification.
Previous round Present round
Before Single Bench Before this Bench
Writ Petition Date of Writ Petition Date of
No. filing No. filing
21239 of 2024 02.08.2024 23907 of 2024 23.08.2024
22320 of 2024 13.08.2024 23775 of 2024 28.08.2024
26038 of 2024 20.09.2024
28488 of 2024 14.10.2024
28576 of 2024 14.10.2024
32482 of 2024 19.11.2024
32978 of 2024 19.11.2024
28. The date of filing of petitions in previous round before the
Single Bench i.e., W.P.Nos.21239 and 22320 of 2024 is
02.08.2024 and 13.08.2024 respectively, whereas the present
batch of petitions were filed much after that. The challenge to
same selection process in the previous round failed on the ground
of delay. Since the petitions filed prior in time in the previous
round were not entertained on the ground of delay, it is not
possible for us to persuade ourselves that subsequent round of
litigation i.e., the present batch can be entertained by ignoring
much larger delay. More-so, when the order passed in
W.P.No.21239 of 2024 got stamp of approval by the Division
Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal and the SLP before the
22
Supreme Court was also dismissed. The delay is fatal for the
present petitions as well. We are not satisfied with the
explanation of the delay given in one case as discussed above.
29. The matter may be viewed from another angle. No doubt, in
W.P.No.21239 of 2024, G.O.Ms.Nos.96 and 29, dated 22.07.2019
and 08.02.2024 respectively were not subject matter of challenge.
Yet, it is noteworthy that recruitment notification No.2/2024,
dated 19.02.2024 was issued in compliance of and in furtherance
of G.O.Ms.No.29. The relief claimed in previous round in
W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and reproduced above leaves no room for
any doubt that the relief claimed was to restore the notification
No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022 and conduct selection in relation to
those number of vacancies, which were notified therein and also
as per the method prevailing at that point of time (as on
26.04.2022). Noticeably, at that point of time G.O.Ms.No.55,
dated 25.04.2022 was in operation and G.O.Ms.No.29 was not
issued.
30. Since W.P.No.21239 of 2024 was dismissed and prayer to
‘re-conduct’ the selection as per notification No.4/2022, dated
26.04.2022 was not entertained, we are unable to persuade
ourselves with the line of argument of Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned
23
Senior Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.23775 of 2024 and
Ms. Kiran Mayee, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.28488 of 2024 that only way for TGPSC was to seek
clarification/direction from this Court if they wanted to conduct a
fresh selection by issuing notification or TGPSC could have issued
an addendum. The new notification No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024
was directly called in question in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 and the
said challenge failed. The inevitable conclusion is that in this
subsequent round of litigation relating to same selection the
directions cannot be issued to ‘re-conduct’ the selection as per the
notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022. Putting it differently,
after order of Writ Court in W.P.No.21239 of 2024, which has
achieved finality, clock cannot be put back to revive the same
selection pursuant to notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022.
31. This is trite that if a relief is claimed and not granted by the
Court, it is deemed to have been rejected (see State Bank of India
v. Ram Chandra Dubey 24). The candidates of same selection of
Group-I in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 claimed relief relating to
restoration of notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022 and other
reliefs, which were not granted and therefore, shall be treated to
24
(2001) 1 SCC 73
24
be declined. In the fitness of things and as propriety demands,
since these matters are pertaining to same selection and present
batch of petitions are filed with much delay subsequent to filing of
W.P.No.21239 of 2024, this Court cannot take a different view
than the view taken by the Writ Court in W.P.No.21239 of 2024.
Thus, we are constrained to hold that these petitions are liable to
be dismissed on the ground of delay in approaching this Court
considering the view taken in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 relating to
same selection.
32. So far, the written submissions filed in W.P.No.28576 of
2024 is concerned, in other words, almost same points are raised
in this written submissions. There is no convincing argument
advanced to explain delay except contending that the
Constitutional Court being guardian of Fundamental Rights
should not decide the matter on technicality.
33. At the cost of repetition, it cannot be forgotten that the
selection questioned in these matters is same selection which
became subject matter of challenge in the previous round i.e.,
W.P.No.21239 of 2024. If lesser delay in filing previous round of
litigation was held to be fatal, it is not possible to hold that a
much larger delay in filing the present batch of petitions will fade
25
into insignificance. The other contentions raised in the written
submissions are relating to merits of the matter which cannot be
gone into in view of delay in filing this batch of Writ Petitions.
34. We will be failing in our duty if we won’t consider argument
of the learned counsel for the parties based on the ‘web-note’
issued by TGPSC. To criticize the said ‘web-note’, a parallel note
i.e., ‘decoding of web-note’ was supplied to the Bench during the
course of hearing. Pertinently, neither ‘web-note’ nor facts
relating to ‘decoding web-note’ formed part of pleadings. These
notes were supplied to show that the number of vacancies and
method sought to fill up of vacancies even runs contrary to the
G.O.Ms.No.29, dated 08.02.2024. We are afraid that in absence of
pleadings and placing this material before this Court through any
permissible mode, no findings can be recorded based on aforesaid
notes. However, we hope and trust that during the selection and
appointment process, the official respondents will take care that
vacancies are filled up strictly in accordance of law.
35. The subsequent events which were sought to be highlighted
during oral submissions through ‘web-note’ and ‘decoding web-
note’ cannot be subject matter of adjudication in the present
batch. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to
26
give liberty to the parties to file separate proceedings in relation to
that aspect based on subsequent events. However, in view of
delay in filing these petitions G.O.Ms.No.96 dated 22.07.2019,
G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 08.02.2024 and Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of
Rules of 1996 cannot be jettisoned.
36. The relief claimed in W.P.No.21239 of 2024 reproduced
hereinabove at paragraph No.20 makes it crystal clear that notification
No.2/2024, dated 19.02.2024 was called in question and prayer was
made to restore previous notification No.4/2022, dated 26.04.2022 and
follow the selection procedure prevailing at that point of time. It was
prayed to ignore subsequent vacancies also. It was also prayed to ‘re-
conduct’ selection as directed in W.P.No.15811 of 2023. All those reliefs
claimed directly were not granted in previous round of litigation. This is
trite that a thing which cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to
be done indirectly (see D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar25 and Shailesh
Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India26).
37. This is equally settled that in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court may not set aside an
illegal order even if it would be lawful to do so.
25
(1987) 1 SCC 378
26
(2018) 9 SCC 100
27
38. In, Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana27, the Apex
Court held as under:
“6. Article 226 grants an extraordinary remedy which is essentially
discretionary, although founded on legal injury. It is perfectly open
for the court, exercising this flexible power, to pass such order
as public interest dictates and equity projects.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. In, Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan28, the Apex Court held
as under:
“43. Issuance of a writ of certiorari is a discretionary remedy. (See
: Champalal Binani v. CIT, (1971) 3 SCC 20 : AIR 1970 SC 645].)
The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising their
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the
Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order
although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High
Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a
discretionary relief to the applicant
44. …This Court in Brji Mohan Gupta case [(2003) 2 SCC 390 :
2003 SCC (L&S) 1741 has also refused to exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction in favour of the appellants although the order of the
High Court was found liable to be set aside being not in accordance
with law.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
40. In, Master Marine Services (P) Ltd. v. Metclfe & Hodgkinson
(P) Ltd.29, the Apex Court opined as under:
“The court should always keep the larger public interest in
mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or
not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public
interest requires interference, the court should interfere.”
27
(1980) 2 SCC 437
28
(2003) 6 SCC 545
29
(2005) 6 SCC 138
28
(Emphasis Supplied)
41. In view of forgoing discussion, no relief is due to the petitioners in
this batch of Writ Petitions. The Writ Petitions are dismissed with
liberty mentioned in paragraph No.35. There shall be no order as to
costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________
JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
______________________
Dr. G. RADHARANI, J
26th December, 2024.
TJMR/GVR