MAHENDERNATH CHADIPAKA Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these batch of Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the legality, validity, propriety and constitutionality of G.O.Ms.No.29 dtd. 8/2/2024, whereby G.O.Ms.No.55 dtd. 25/4/2022 was amended, and G.O.Ms.No.96, dtd. 22/7/2019 are called in question. The vires of Rule 22 (2) (a) and (b) of The Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (Rules of 1996) is also called in question.

(2.) Draped in brevity, the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of these matters are as under:

(3.) In W.P.No.23775 of 2024, Dr. Aditya Sondhi, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Palle Srinivas Reddy, urged that as per the directions contained in the order of this Court in W.P.No.15811 of 2023 affirmed in W.A.No.942 of 2023, the only option left with TGPSC was to 're-conduct' the examination. If TGPSC intended to conduct a new examination, appropriate direction should have been taken from this Court. In the teeth of direction of this Court to re-conduct the preliminary examination, cancellation of earlier notification No.4/2022, dtd. 26/4/2022 and issuing new notification No.2/2024, dtd. 19/2/2024 is bad in law. Secondly, in the event of re-conduct of examination, the respondents were required to adhere to the same number of vacancies whereas pursuant to new notification No.2/2024, they have enhanced the number of vacancies from 503 to 563, thereby enlarged the zone of consideration, which is impermissible. This amounts to change of rule of game after commencement of the game. Reliance is placed on a recent Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184. Criticizing G.O.Ms.No.29, dtd. 8/2/2024, it is argued that the reason for bringing this GO is bad in law. The judgment of the Supreme Court in A.P. Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badavath, AIRONLINE 2009 SC 624 cannot be a reason to bring G.O.Ms.No.29. The other reason assigned is pendency of certain cases before this Court which cannot be a valid reason to introduce impugned G.O.Ms.No.29.