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 Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court 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

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