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

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