M.S. Praveen Kumar v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.41479 OF 2017 ORDER:

The petitioner is a degree-holder in Bachelor of Physiotherapy from the Deccan Medical College, Santosh Nagar, Hyderabad. He obtained the said degree in the year 2005. Now the second respondent issued a Notification No.58 of 2017, dated 08.11.2017 for filling up of the post of Physiotherapists. The last date for submission of applications is 11.12.2017 and written examination would be held in the month of January, 2018. The petitioner also applied for the said post. But strangely, he challenges the Notification and seeks cancellation by stating that there are certain defects in the Notification and without rectifying those defects, the recruitment process should not go on.

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out the following defects. He states that the qualifying examination for the said post is stated to be the diploma level, but the applications are called from the graduates and hence, the Notification is defective. He further states that there is ten years relaxation for physically handicapped persons, but in respect of Zone-VI, one post was reserved for visually handicapped women, when visually handicapped persons are not given any admission in the degree for Physiotherapy course. He further states that in stead of notifying 12 posts in Zone VI, now only six posts are notified. The above defects pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner do not stand in the way of the petitioner applying for the said post and getting qualified.

It is for the employer to notify the vacancies and on the basis of information furnished to the second respondent, the second respondent issued notification inviting applications and conducts the recruitment process.

petitioner. Though the applications are invited from graduates, the recruiting agency can conduct the recruitment examination at a level lower than the graduate level. Though one post was reserved for visually handicapped person, the second respondent might have reserved the said post based on the information furnished by the employer. The submission of the petitioner that instead of notifying twelve posts, only six posts are notified, is again for the employer and this Court cannot direct the Notification shall be issued for twelve posts. In the circumstances, this Court sees no ground to interfere in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 07.12.2017 pln