SUDHARSHAN V. Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare and Sri Ram Gopal Rao, learned standing counsel for TSPSC, for the respondents.

(2.) Since the point involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, these two writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, I refer to the facts mentioned in W.P.No.24876 of 2018.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that pursuant to the notification No.9/2015 issued by the sixth respondent dtd. 29/5/2015 for the posts of Assistant Engineers in various Engineering Subordinate Services, Municipal Assistant Engineers and Technical Officers in Public Health and Municipal Engineering Subordinate Service, the petitioner has applied for the same. Although the notification was issued for 37 vacancies under physically handicapped quota, results were announced only for 16 vacancies and his case was not considered on the ground of non-availability of vacancies. Apart from the above, the 12 women posts were also not filled due to non-availability of the candidates.