Married Daughter Cannot Be Excluded From Compassionate Appointment Solely On The Ground Of Marriage: Chhattisgarh High Court Allahabad HC Condemns Lawyers Seeking Adjournments To Attend District Courts Inherent Powers Under Section 151 CPC Cannot Be Invoked For Restoration Of Possession When Statutory Remedy Of Restitution Exists: Calcutta High Court Invoke Preventive Detention Laws Against Sand Mining Kingpins: Supreme Court Directs ED Probe To Protect Chambal Sanctuary Res Judicata Bars Pendente Lite Purchaser From Re-Agitating Impleadment Under Order XXII Rule 10 CPC If Rejected Under Order I Rule 10: Supreme Court Consumer Complaints Can Continue Against Promoters & Co-Developers Even If Corporate Debtor Is Under IBC Moratorium: Supreme Court IBC Moratorium Protects Only Corporate Debtor, Does Not Bar Consumer Complaints Against Promoters & Directors: Supreme Court Vehicle Registration Certificate Relevant But Not Conclusive For Deciding Interim Custody Under Section 451 CrPC: Supreme Court Lawyer Has No Unqualified Right To Continuous Presence During Entire Interrogation Under Section 38 BNSS: Supreme Court Mandating Continuous Videography Of Accused During Transit Is Unworkable, May Lead To Unfounded Allegations: Supreme Court Centre Introduces FCRA Amendment Bill 2026: Proposes Vesting Of Defunct NGO Assets In 'Designated Authority', Mandates Prior Nod For Probe Written Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest Not Mandatory For Arrests Prior To SC's 'Mihir Rajesh Shah' Judgment: Orissa High Court Passing Ex-Parte Maintenance Order Without Verifying Status Of WhatsApp Or Email Notice Violates Natural Justice: Madhya Pradesh High Court Training ChatGPT On Copyrighted News Is 'Fair Dealing', Does Not Amount To Infringement: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enjoin OpenAI Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship

Telangana High Court Directs TS GENCO to Fill 42 Vacant Assistant Engineer Posts from 2015 Notification

09 October 2024 9:29 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Decision Not to Fill Vacancies Due to Surplus Staff Unjustified: Unfilled Posts Required for New Recruitment, Telangana High Court in T. Saritha v. The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation (TS GENCO) directed TS GENCO to consider the appointment of the petitioners for 42 unfilled Assistant Engineer (Electrical) vacancies from a 2015 recruitment notification. The court found TS GENCO’s decision not to fill the vacancies, citing surplus staff, to be unjustified, especially since the corporation included the unfilled posts in a new recruitment drive in 2023.

The petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in response to TS GENCO’s 2015 recruitment notification for 413 vacancies. Despite securing high marks in the written exam, they were not appointed, as many vacancies remained unfilled. TS GENCO later issued a resolution in 2017 stating that there was no need for further recruitment, claiming surplus employees. However, in 2023, TS GENCO issued a fresh notification to fill 187 posts, including 42 carried forward from the 2015 notification.

Inconsistent Recruitment Stance: The court found that TS GENCO’s argument of surplus staff contradicted its decision to carry forward the unfilled vacancies to the 2023 recruitment process. This inconsistency rendered the earlier resolution to halt recruitment unreasonable​.

Right to Appointment: The court emphasized that while the petitioners did not have an absolute right to appointment, they had a legitimate expectation based on their merit and the unfilled vacancies. TS GENCO’s refusal to complete the recruitment process was deemed arbitrary​.

Failure to Operate Merit List: TS GENCO's failure to exhaust the merit list multiple times, unlike other corporations, was criticized by the court, which noted that the petitioners would have been appointed had the corporation followed the standard procedure​.

The Telangana High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed TS GENCO to consider the petitioners for appointment to the 42 unfilled Assistant Engineer posts within six weeks. The corporation was instructed to base the appointments on the petitioners’ merit and roster points from the 2015 recruitment​.

This judgment reinforces the principle that public sector employers must act transparently and reasonably in recruitment processes. The court's ruling ensures that qualified candidates are not arbitrarily denied appointments due to administrative inconsistencies.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

T. Saritha v. The Telangana State Power Generation Corporation​.

Latest Legal News