Writ petition by unsuccessful candidates after appointments are put in abeyance
A State transport corporation notified 96 posts of Junior Assistant. A selection list of 96 candidates was published on 14 August 2024 and 61 were appointed in September and October. On 9 January 2025 a Government memo directed that further appointments be kept in abeyance pending verification of the backlog roster. The 35 candidates still waiting include 12 who stand in the general merit list on their own merit. In the same period, six candidates positioned below them in the list were appointed against a separate backlog roster. Thirty-four of the waiting candidates file a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to appoint them, alleging that the memo is arbitrary and that the abeyance has been applied only to them. One of them has a representation pending before the Managing Director since 20 January 2025. The petition is accompanied by an affidavit but the copy meant for the respondents has not been served. None of the petitioners has approached the Telangana State Administrative Tribunal.
1. Is the petition maintainable in the High Court, and is the alternative remedy of the Tribunal a defect the scrutiny section can act on?
Read the worked answer
The subject is a 'service matter' within Section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - appointment to a public post under the State - and Article 323A read with that Act gives the Tribunal jurisdiction. But exclusion of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 is not permissible; L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India holds that this power is part of the basic structure, so a litigant may come to the High Court, though ordinarily it will decline where the Tribunal is available and the dispute needs evidence.
That is a judicial question, not a formal defect. The scrutiny section cannot return or refuse to number a writ petition because an alternative remedy exists; the objection is recorded in the note placed before the court, and the court decides whether to entertain the petition or relegate the petitioners to the Tribunal on the first hearing. The Examiner's legitimate action is limited to the formal objection: the unserved copy of the petition required by the Writ Proceedings Rules must be cured, and the pendency of the representation should be brought to the court's notice as part of the record.
2. How is the Government memo of 9 January 2025 to be characterised and tested? Does the abeyance create an enforceable right?
Read the worked answer
The memo is an executive instruction traceable to Article 162, not 'law' under Article 13, and it cannot supplant the recruitment rules or the selection already concluded; it can at most regulate the manner in which the executive exercises its discretion. Its validity is tested on the anvil of Article 14: whether the classification between the 61 appointed and the 35 kept waiting rests on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus, or is arbitrary.
Here the difficulty for the State is the six appointments made from below the list while holding the higher-ranked candidates in abeyance. If those six went in against a distinct backlog roster, the State must show that the two streams are legally separate; if they do not, the treatment is unequal on the same set of facts, and the memo operates harshly only against a select group.
A completed selection does not create a vested right to appointment, and legitimate expectation gives a right to fair consideration, not to the post. The correct claim is to be considered in accordance with the rules, not an unconditional mandamus to appoint.
3. What relief is properly grantable, and what should the Examiner check before the petition is listed?
Read the worked answer
A direction to consider is grantable; a direction to appoint is not, unless the rules leave no discretion and the petitioners' eligibility is beyond dispute. The court may quash the abeyance to the extent it singles out the petitioners, direct the corporation to complete verification within a time frame, and preserve the petitioners' position in the select list with a corresponding direction that no appointments from below be made until their claims are decided. Interim relief must be weighed against the corporation's administrative inconvenience and the absence of any equity in the public exchequer; status quo as to the select list is the usual order.
Before listing, the Examiner verifies number and classification of the matter (a service matter on the writ side), that the affidavit is properly sworn and the respondents' copy is served, whether an interim application has been filed and separately numbered with the prescribed fee, and that the memo, the selection list and the representation are paginated and indexed so that the court can test the pleadings against documents. Listing cannot cure a defect of maintainability; it can only place the material in usable order.