Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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