MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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