The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the Telangana High Court, which had confirmed the Single Judge’s order in favor of respondent no. 1. The Court found that the recruitment agency had correctly applied the law regarding the 30:70 ratio of reservation for local and non-local candidates. The recruitment made in favor of respondent no. 2 was restored.

1. Introduction: Leave granted. Impugned order by the High Court of Telangana confirmed the Single Judge’s decision in favor of respondent no. 1 and ordered redrawing of the merit list.

2. Hearing Details: Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the parties.

3. Brief Facts:

   • Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 established cadre organization and direct recruitment rules (GOMs No. 674 dated 20.10.1975).
   • Amendment to Annexure II through GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 introduced a 30:70 local and non-local recruitment ratio.

4. Legal Provisions: Rule 22 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, mandates recruitment through a 100-point roster, with Roster Point No. 2 reserved for Scheduled Caste Women.

5. Notification and Recruitment:

   • Notification No. 03/2018 invited applications for junior lecturer posts.
   • Local and zonal reservations were applied as per GOMs No. 674 (20.10.1975) and GOMs No. 124 (07.03.2002).
   • Candidates must select zones based on merit and zonal preference.

6. Preferences and Merit List:

   • Respondent no. 1 (local) opted for Zone VI, ranked 49th.
   • Respondent no. 2, ranked 35th, opted for Zone V as first preference and Zone VI as second.

7. Writ Petition: Respondent no. 1 challenged the recruitment process, arguing for a 40:60 ratio. The Single Judge ruled in her favor, adopting a different vacancy allocation ratio and setting aside the recruitment.

8. Appellant’s Submissions: Argued that the Courts failed to apply GOMs No. 124 and GOMs No. 763, stating the appellant correctly allotted vacancies per merit and zonal preference.

9. Respondent’s Submissions: Counsel for respondent no. 1 argued the recruitment process lacked transparency and justified the High Court’s adoption of the 40:60 ratio.

10. Discussion: The Court emphasized that the amendment to GOMs No. 763 clearly establishes a 30:70 ratio for local and non-local recruitment and that the recruitment agency's actions aligned with this legal framework.

11. Judicial Restraint: Citing Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. B.S. Mahajan, the Court noted that judicial intervention in recruitment processes should be limited unless there is proven illegality or irregularity.

12. Conclusion: The Supreme Court ruled that the recruitment process adhered to the law, overturning the High Court’s order, and restoring the recruitment of respondent no. 2.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975 (GOMs No. 674 dated 20.10.1975)
• GOMs No. 124 dated 07.03.2002 (Amendment to Annexure II of G.O.P No. 763 dated 15.11.1975)
• Rule 22 of Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996

Ratio Decidendi:

The 30:70 ratio for local and non-local candidates, as amended through GOMs No. 124, must be strictly followed in recruitment processes. Courts must exercise caution and limited intervention when reviewing recruitment agency decisions unless a clear violation of law or procedure is evident.

Subjects:

#RecruitmentLaw #PublicEmployment #ReservationPolicy #JudicialRestraint