Dr. P. Sathaiah , P. Satyam And Another vs. The State Of Telangana And Another

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is premature. It reasoned that the promotions have not yet been made, and the current stage is merely the process of identifying eligible candidates. The Court noted that the petitioners' claim that there are insufficient eligible women candidates to fill the vacancies can only be substantiated after the exercise of identifying and considering women Staff Nurse/Health Supervisors is completed. The Court emphasized that the issue of considering male candidates for the remaining vacancies would only arise if, after considering all eligible women candidates, vacancies still persist and the employer intends to fill them. Therefore, the Court found it inappropriate to delve into the merits of the petitioners' claim at this premature stage. The Court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open for the petitioners to pursue their remedies after the process of identifying eligible women candidates is concluded.

Facts

The petitioners, Dr. P. Sathaiah and B. Anjaneyulu, are male Health Supervisors working in schools and junior colleges under the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society (TSWREIS). They are seeking promotion to the post of Health Supervisor in Degree Colleges for Women. The TSWREIS issued proceedings on January 16, 2021, to fill vacancies in these higher posts, specifically calling for lists of women Staff Nurse/Health Supervisors. The petitioners contend that they are over 50 years old and eligible for promotion, and that male candidates should also be considered if there aren't enough eligible women candidates, as per a policy memo dated April 22, 2017. They argue that the current action of limiting consideration only to women is illegal and arbitrary.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent in limiting the consideration for promotion to the post of Health Supervisors in Degree Colleges for Women solely to women candidates, despite the petitioners being eligible male candidates, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners argue that the policy memo dated April 22, 2017, allows for the consideration of male candidates for promotion to Health Supervisor in Degree Colleges for Women if sufficient female candidates are not available. They contend that they meet the age and eligibility criteria and should be considered. They also claim that other male candidates working as Junior Lecturers, Physical Directors, and Librarians have been considered for promotions to Degree Colleges, implying a discriminatory practice against them. Respondent's arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, argued that the promotions have not yet been made and the issue is at the stage of calling for eligible candidates. They submitted that the availability of sufficient eligible women candidates can only be ascertained after the exercise of identifying them is completed. They also stated that the petitioners are not claiming preference over eligible women candidates but are seeking consideration if vacancies remain unfilled by women.