05 March 2024 Civil Appeals >> Civil & Consumer Law   |   Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a recruitment dispute, the Supreme Court of India has clarified the procedure for filling government posts in Telangana. The case involved a challenge to the selection process for junior lecturer positions at Residential Educational Institutions Societies. The issue centered on the allocation of positions between local and non-local candidates.

Facts:

• The Appellant, a duly authorized recruitment agency, issued Notification No. 03/2018 inviting applications for the post of Junior Lecturers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies within the state of Telangana.
• The recruitment process adhered to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 (GO No. 674 dated 20.10.1975), as amended by GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "Government Order"). Notably, the Government Order mandated a 30% reservation for candidates selected based on a combined merit list of both local and non-local applicants, with the remaining 70% of vacancies reserved for local candidates subject to zonal preferences.
• Respondent No. 1, a local candidate, and Respondent No. 2, a non-local candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste Women category, applied for the aforementioned positions.
• In the merit list prepared by the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 secured a higher rank compared to Respondent No. 1.
• During the application process, Respondent No. 1 indicated Zone VI as her first preference for posting, while Respondent No. 2 listed Zone V as her first preference and Zone VI as her second preference.
• Respondent No. 1 subsequently challenged the recruitment of Respondent No. 2, contending that the local reservation should have been strictly applied to 70% of the vacancies from the outset.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court of India determined that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the reservation ratio outlined in the Government Order.
• The Court clarified that the proper application of the reservation policy involved filling 30% of the vacancies based on the combined merit list of local and non-local candidates, followed by the allocation of the remaining 70% of vacancies to local candidates subject to their zonal preferences.
• The Court definitively ruled that candidates were eligible for consideration in zones other than their first preference, provided they had exercised that option during the application process.
• In light of the aforementioned, the Supreme Court concluded that the Appellant had followed the appropriate legal guidelines established by the Government Order. Consequently, the Court upheld the recruitment of Respondent No. 2.