Hyderabad: Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court sentenced former collector of Nirmal
HC Rejects 'Belated' Claims of Constable Post Applicant
Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty of the Telangana High Court rejected the claims of a candidate for the post of constable stipendiary cadet training in the police department on the ground of latches. He upheld the plea of the authorities that, in a time-bound process of recruitment, if petitions based on vague, equivocal or debatable matters are litigated during or after the process of recruitment, it becomes virtually impossible to decisively come to a conclusion on the merit list as the same has the potential to jeopardise the selection process, which has already been completed by the respondent board. That if litigation was allowed on issues settled transparently by laid down procedure, the whole process gets unsettled, and it becomes virtually impossible to complete the recruitment. P. Anjanyulu, a Home Guard from Nalgonda district, filed a writ petition aggrieved by his non-selection as stipendiary cadet training and constable in the police department of Nalgonda district consequent to a notification in 2015. The petitioner passed the written test, and physical measurement test and physical efficiency test (PET) and secured 73 marks, 85 marks and 80 marks in post code no.21 (civil). The petitioner complained that the authorities had not followed the rule of reservation applicable to the Home Guard quota. Further, they had appointed candidates for the post of TSSP (post code No.24) under the local quota, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner. The petitioner studied in Nalgonda district and the relevant certificate to show that the petitioner is a local was duly enclosed, but the respondents treated him as a non-local. Though the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondents ventilating his grievances, they did not consider the same. It is the case of the recruiting authority that the petitioner did not submit a residence certificate for a four-year period prior to 2002, the year in which he appeared for the SCC exams, and hence was treated as a non-local applicant. The petitioner secured less marks than the cut-off marks for all the notified posts as a non-local candidate. They clarified that no candidate with less marks than the petitioner was selected either under 20 per cent unreserved posts or under open competition. It is further contended that the petitioner did not mention school details in the online application and only mentioned residence details. Dealing with various issues, Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty said that it can be culled out that the petitioner did not mention the educational details in the application submitted by him. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner did not have any certificate/document evidencing his study in the local area. The provisional selection list of SCT PC (Civil etc.) was issued on February 16, 2017. Further, the petitioner submitted a residence certificate days after the date of verification of documents and even the representation dated February 21, 2017, was submitted after issuance of the provisional selection list as well as filling up all the notified posts. The petitioner approached the recruitment board at a belated stage. Admittedly, the entire process was completed and the successful candidates were appointed long back. Therefore, at this stage, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and further, the selected candidates cannot now be unsettled/disturbed after appointment at this belated stage, the court said.
