Merely Because Recruitment Agency Cannot Satisfy Court, Relief Cannot Be Extended To Candidate Deprived As It Will Have Cascading Effect On Numerous Others: SC
The Supreme Court held that merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said candidate but also on numerous others.
The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board (recruitment agency) issued a notification for the recruitment to the post of junior lecturers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies. The notification had clearly mentioned that “no candidate will be considered to any other zone not opted for and therefore such consideration is confined among the ones preferred.”
A Division Bench of the Telangana High Court set aside the recruitment made by the recruitment agency in favour of the candidate and ordered for redrawing of the merit list.
Justice A. S. Bopanna and Justice M. M. Sundresh observed, “Courts will have to be cautious and therefore slow in dealing with recruitment process adopted by the recruitment agency. A lot of thought process has gone into applying the rules and regulations. Merely because a recruitment agency is not in a position to satisfy the Court, a relief cannot be extended to a candidate deprived as it will have a cascading effect not only on the said recruitment of respondent no.2, but also to numerous others as well.”
Sr. Advocate V. Giri represented the appellant, while AOR Krishna Kumar Singh appeared for the respondents.
The Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 conferred the State Government discretion to constitute committees advising on personnel allotment to State, Zonal, and District cadres across various departments and posts.
The Supreme Court explained that the notification mandated that 30% of available posts for both locals and non-locals must be filled first, before proceeding with the remaining 70%. The Court stated that the High Court fell into an error by adopting a different ratio and prioritizing the 70% first.
The Court clarified that candidates were not non-suited to being considered in another zone subject to the zone being part of their chosen options, which the candidate did.
“We have no iota of doubt that the appellant has correctly followed the mandate of law” stated the Court.
The Court remarked that “courts are duty bound to take into consideration the relevant orders, rules and enactments before finally deciding the case.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court and allowed the appeals.
Cause Title: The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board v. Saluvadi Sumalatha & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 176)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate V. Giri; Advocates P. Venkat Reddy, P. Srinivas Reddy and Rahul Narang
Respondents: AOR Krishna Kumar Singh and Manoj C. Mishra
