Telangana HC dismisses petitions challenging GO 29 for group 1 network

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court on Thursday dismissed a series of petitions challenging the legality and constitutionality of Government Ordinance no. 29, which specified the methods of selection of merit candidates for the Group 1 main exams.

The court also rejected the challenge to the legality of OG no. 96 dated July 22, 2019, for the substitution of clauses (a) and (b) of Rule 22 (2) of the Telangana State Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 for prescribing list points for categories or categories with disabilities.

Also, the High Court rejected the requests to challenge the issuance of a new notification for Group 1 recruitment in 2024, by canceling the old notification issued in 2022.

The Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice G. Radha Rani passed the orders in the petitions, which mainly challenged GO-29, which had sparked agitations ahead of Group 1 main examinations.

The candidates claimed that by OG no. 29, the State Government and TGPSC were not applying the rule of reservation in respect of each category of candidates reserved independently in the ratio of 1:50 (50 times) in the main written examination of group- 1 services.

Based on the preliminary test, 31,382 candidates were provisionally admitted to the main exam according to the criteria mentioned in OG Ms. no. 29.

The court questioned the petitioners regarding the delay in filing these applications. Although GO 29 was issued on 8 February 2024 and the new notification for Group 1 recruitment was issued on 18 February 2024, the petitions were filed during August-October, which is just before the schedule of Group 1 main examinations.

The tribunal also pointed out that the High Court had already dismissed a petition challenging the cancellation of the old notification for Group 1 recruitment in 2022.

In the judgement, Justice Sujoy Paul opined that the petitioners’ lawyers had not presented any convincing argument to explain the delay, except that the constitutional court, being the guardian of fundamental rights, should not decide the matter on a technicality.

However, the High Court expressed hope and confidence that during the selection and appointment process, the officials of the state government and TGSPSC will see to it that the vacancies are filled strictly in accordance with the law.