Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: 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