Case Note & Summary
The case involves a recruitment dispute for the post of junior lecturers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies in Telangana. The appellant, the recruitment agency, issued a notification on 31.07.2018 inviting applications. The selection process was governed by the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975, issued under Article 371D of the Constitution, and the instructions in G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975, as amended by GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002. The amendment mandated a 30:70 ratio: 30% of posts to be filled from a combined merit list of locals and non-locals, and the remaining 70% from locals only, subject to rule of reservation. Additionally, Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 required appointments based on a 100 Point Roster, with Scheduled Caste (Women) at Roster Point No.2. Respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 both belonged to Roster Point No.2. Respondent no.1, a local, gave first preference for Zone VI, while respondent no.2, a non-local, gave first preference for Zone V and second preference for Zone VI. Respondent no.2 secured 35th rank, while respondent no.1 secured 49th rank. Respondent no.1 filed a writ petition contending that the ratio should be 40:60 and that she, being a local with first preference for Zone VI, should have been selected over respondent no.2. The learned Single Judge allowed the petition, fixing the ratio at 40:60 and holding that respondent no.2 could not be considered under Zone VI as it was her second preference. The Division Bench affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court, on appeal, held that the High Court erred in adopting a wrong ratio and in not following the mandatory 30:70 ratio. The Court also held that there was no bar to considering a candidate in a zone other than her first preference if she had exercised that option. Relying on Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, the Court emphasized that courts should not interfere with recruitment processes unless there is illegality, patent material irregularity, or mala fides. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and restored the recruitment in favor of respondent no.2.
Headnote
A) Constitution Law - Local Reservation - Article 371D - GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 - The Supreme Court held that the 30:70 ratio for filling posts (30% for combined merit of locals and non-locals, 70% for locals only) is mandatory and must be followed strictly. The High Court erred in adopting a 40:60 ratio and in filling 70% first. (Paras 13-14) B) Service Law - Recruitment - Zone Preference - Option - The Court held that a candidate can be considered in a zone other than her first preference if she has exercised that option. Respondent no.2, who opted for Zone VI as second preference, was rightly considered. (Paras 8, 13) C) Judicial Review - Recruitment Process - Limited Scope - Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan - Courts should not sit in appeal over decisions of selection committees unless there is illegality, patent material irregularity, or mala fides. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by interfering with the recruitment process. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the recruitment made by the appellant by adopting a 40:60 ratio instead of the mandated 30:70 ratio for local reservation, and whether a candidate can be considered in a zone other than her first preference if opted.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge, and restored the recruitment made in favor of respondent no.2.
Law Points
- 30:70 ratio for local reservation
- Article 371D
- GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002
- G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975
- 100 Point Roster
- Rule 22 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules 1996
- option for zone preference
- limited judicial review of recruitment process
- Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan
