Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Telangana Recruitment Process: Merit and Zone Preference Take Precedence in Appointments, Rules 30:70 Ratio for Local and Non-Local Candidates as Per Mandate"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court today upheld the recruitment process conducted by the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board, emphasizing the adherence to the prescribed 30:70 ratio for local and non-local candidates as mandated by the GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002.

The crux of the judgment revolves around the legitimacy of the recruitment procedure, particularly concerning the allocation of posts to local and non-local candidates as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975. The contention was regarding the interpretation and application of this Order, alongside Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

The appeal arose from a dispute over recruitment to the post of junior lecturers in Telangana. The High Court had earlier set aside the recruitment in favor of Respondent No. 2, directing a redrawing of the merit list. The main contention involved the interpretation of the recruitment process as per the amended Government Order (G.O.P No. 763 and its amendment via GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002), and the consideration of candidates based on their zonal preference.

The Court, after a thorough analysis, affirmed that the recruitment process correctly followed the amended Government Order, mandating that 30% of the posts be filled first by both locals and non-locals based on merit, followed by the remaining 70% to be filled by locals. Justice M. M. Sundresh, while delivering the judgment, emphasized judicial restraint in interfering with recruitment processes and observed, "Courts are duty-bound to consider relevant orders, rules, and enactments before deciding the case." The Supreme Court relied on the precedent set in Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, highlighting the limited grounds on which judicial interference is permissible in recruitment processes.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, reinstating the recruitment of Respondent No. 2 and thus affirming the recruitment procedure of the Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board. The Court underscored the correct application of the 30:70 ratio for local and non-local candidates, as well as the consideration of zonal preferences based on merit.

 Date of Decision: March 5, 2024

The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board vs. Saluvadi Sumalatha & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News