The High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Kiran Kumar.B, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitaoner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3"

2. The oetitioner a DD roached t his Court seekinq the prayer as under: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in allotting the petitioner to Mulugu District vide proceeding s No. ESIES/ WA/MULU/LAPA/0O18, dated 22.12.2027 is illegal, arbitrary and violating Articles 14, & 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to atlot the petitioner.to Siddipet District by setting aside allotment order dated 22.12.2021, Memo No. SPVSecy Peshi/202t-2O20, dated 37.3.2022 and Memo No. SPl/Secretary Peshi/2027-897 dated 30.11.2022 with all consequential benefits and pass...".

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is a disabled candidate having 53olo disability and has been appointed as Language Pandit (Telugu) in the vacancies meant I 2 SN .I \\'P t0t2 202.1 for disableld p3rsons vide proceedings dated 27 IL2OO). As per G.O.Ms.Ncr. ij 7, dated 06.12.2021 the petitione_ shtulc be given preference lo- allotment as per his seniority, l-.iorry lver, the petitioner rr a:; allotted to Mulugu District ins:eac, of Siddipet District vice prt:eedings dated 22.12.2021. Agllrieved thereby the petitionrlr preferred an appear on 24.12..?.02 t tr the 3.d respondent Ertrj 6ls6 to the 1't respondent on 27 12.2O2L considering ther said Appeals the Respondents issued prcceedings dated 07.O1 .2Ct:12 posting the petitioner to JpS; lvredaram, Mulugu. Acygrit:'r:d thereby the petitioner approache:d .ris Court by filing W.F \o. 4201 of 2022 questioning the actio..r oF the respondent!; n not considering the appeal this C.ourt passed interim dire.tior in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.p. Nc.42il1 rf 2022, dated 01.0,2.2C.1 2 directing the respondents t() c()nsi jer the appeal dated 2,t t2.202L, on or before 22.03.,1022, )ut the respondents r::jr::red the case of the petitioner anrl issueri Memo dated 31.3.2(r2,2, stating that the candidates who are having 70% disabili[y r,r,ill be considered under special category )ut not 53olo disabirity aggrieved thereby again the petitilne- f,rr d w.p. No.24209 of .t.022 before this Court challenging the allttment proceedings jzste <l 22.12.202I and appeal rejecticn o.der dated I 3 SN, J wP l0 t2 2023 3L.3.2022 and this Court passed order dated 27 '09'2022 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner' However, the same was not considered' The petitioner filed Contempt Case vide CS SR No'55549/2022 before this Court on 14.I2.2022. The respondent issued a fresh rejection memo dated 30.11.2022 stating that the petitioner is involved in F'I'R' No.274of2013dated20.06.2013forproducingfakedisability certificate and disciplinary enquiry is pending against the petitioner. 3 (i). It is further the case of the petitioner that recently while the petitioner was returning home from work place, petitioner met with an accident since petitioner is suffering with 70olo disability due to which petitioner could not listen to the horns on theroads'Therefore,thepetitionerisent|tledforspecial category. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in allotting the petitioner to Mulugu District vide proceedings dated 22.12.2021, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ Petition.

4. PE SE T ER o D (A). The imDu qned DToceedinqs Proc. No.ES lEs/WA /MUL AI U/LAP oo18,

22. .2 2t 4 SN, J \/P r0 r2 2023 tssu edbv e District Ed ucationa I officer (FAC), Hanumak onda is extra cted hereunder Government of Telangana [)epartment of SCHOOL EDUCATIOI\] Proce'Idir(Is of DiSTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFI(]ER (FA ]) Hanumakonda Proc. No. ES /ESy'WA/MULU/LAPA/OO18, dated 22. ..2.ZO2L Sub: Tre Telangana Public Employment (Organizltior of Local C ac res and Regulation of Direct Recruitrnent.) O der 2018 - O'-.lanization of Local Cadres - Allotm€nt of o:rsons to Nevr [.ocal Cadres - Orders -Issued. Read: .. !.O.Ms.No. 317 GA(SpF) Dept, dated: Oti.t2.?.OZt. ORDER In purs ra rce of the provisions contained in pir-aq -apI- 4 of the Telangana lrublic Employment (Organization oF L,lcal Ca,lres and Regulation of li.ect Recruitment) Order, 201g, the Oider and Guidelines isst eri in the reference 2"d cited and the a lotrlent made by the Committe. a Lrthorized by the Government, the fcllowing tllotmeni is ordered. Employ< e lrlame Employe e I-- Emplo yr.e IlDbile No Desigr a:ior Erstwl ilr: L.or:a l Cadre Allotte d Nerrv Local Cadre SATYAM NALUS,,\NI 2150 186 94978t7994 Language Pand l. Grade II (MPP/zPP) (Telrgu) Warangal Mulugu You a-e lerreby directed to report to your new Loctl Cadre mentioned abo ire ,r'ithin 3 days from issue of orders. NARYAN REDDY KAI{KA'.JTI DISTRICT EDUC)\T I(] NA - oFFrcER (FAC) Hanumakonda To The ind ividua I (_o r c e rned. I i I ) SN, J wP t0t2 2023 Secreta rv Peshi 2 o2t-897 Date (B). The am DUOned Droceedin qs vide Me mo No.Sol/ 30.LL.2 O22 issuedbv resDon dent to the District Educational Offi cer, the 1't Mulu ou, Mulu u Distric ts extracte d hereu nder: GOVERNMENT OF TELANGANA SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Memo. No.Spl/Secretary Peshi/2O21'A97 Date: 30 Lt'2O22' Sub: Presidential Order 2018 - Allocation of local cadres - Appeal received - orders of disposal of appeal issued - Reg. Ref: 1. G.O.Ms.No.124, G.A. (SPF-MC) Department, Dt'30-08-

2. G.O.Ms. No. 317, G.A. (Ser.1) Dept', Dt' O6-t2-2O21 3. Govt Memo. No.1655/SPF.1 /2021-7 of General Admin istration (SPF. 1 ) Department, Dt'23 - t2-2OZl'

4. orders dated, 27.09.2022 of the Hon'ble High Court issued in W.P' No. 24209 /2022 filed by Sri N' Satyam. LP (Telugu) Gr. -II,crstwhile Warangal District' The appeal filed by Sri N. Satyam, LP (Telugu) Gr'-II, erstwhile Warangal Oistrict has been examined in light of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P No. 24209/2022, relevant rules, and records furnished by the District Educational Offlcer, erstwhile Warangal District. The petitioner is found not eligible for considering his case in terms of the drders issued in references 2nd and 3'd read above' Earlier, the Superintendent, Govt, ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad have certified that the physical handicapped certificates produced by (18) candidates are found to be fake vide Lr. Rc' No' l-/6/E2/ENf /L3, bt. f e.Oz.ZOf 3 and the Superintendent of MGM Hospital, Warangal vide Lr. Rc. No. Spl/RMP/2013, Dt. 08.02.2013' It was found out that, the petitioner has produced a fake physically handicapped certificate (hearing impaired). Accordingly, a Criminal Case was also filed by the aepartment against Sri. N. Satyam vide FIR No' 274/2073, Dt' 20.06.2013. Sii. N. Satyam was suspended then and reinstated as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court dt. 20.06'2017 in W'P MP' No' 227f8 of 2077 in W.P No. !8674 of 2017, pending dlsciplinary action 6 SN, J \ ,'t, I0 t 2 2021 against him -'hr: is also pend n ;. s;aid Criminal case which is filed aqainst the petitioner In this .e,lard, the petitioner has submitted thc same :hysically handicapperl r ert ficate which has a disability percent:ge of 5 I o/o at the time of allo-nren_ of new local cadres. But, as per {:-.O Ms No. 317 GAD (SPF-I), Dl. 06.12.2021, only the emptoyees with a disabitity percentage )f 7())/) or more are eligible to be considr:-ecj unc:r special category. A:; , ut:lt the appeal of the petitioner was r ele( ted as he did not meet tre re,quired conditions for him to be :onsrder_.d under special cate(to'y But, thc_ oetitioner has su bm itt ano! h-er___-p. hvsical lv :ertificate dt. 26.LL.2(J21 issu 9d _ bv District ha nd icaooe! et district withad isabilitv _pl'.lce ltaqe of Medical Boa_lCL_ Siddio 7oolo. It is ob erved that, the Detitio ner even _at_the time of allotment oJ rrew lo l:he sa id certificate C[t-. 2_6.11.2O21 which has disa bilitv_gercentage of 71olo and no_t.ct3l_imed the soecial cateoory. I cadres al o did not srr bnr it Therefgrcr_,_ in view of the pendino discioliga.lyl ase and criminal cass-Be@ no-f fe,nsible to consider the c€flificate submitted bv the petitioner_to a llot him to the new lo(A_l cadre of Siddipet district. The_ appg?l of the pet iti on e r i s_h€ Drc_IC.iCglCd. The D st ri( t Collector, Warangal District. and Distri,:: Ed rcational Officer, Waran 1al [)istrict are directed to take further ner-,:ssa-y action in the matter . sd/- v. IlARUNA SECRETARY I () GCVE 1NI,4 ENT To The District Oo Ie::or, Warangal District. The District E d ,rc,t:ional Officer, Warangal District The individua I rp tellant through District Educational OF.icL.-, W arangal (c). Lhe_ order of the Division Bench _of_thiri Court 76 ot 2022, assed in W 4 dated O2.Ot.2 N 3 r levan t ara l{o.7 is e xtracted her nder: (t 1 SN, J wP l0l2 2023 r referenti n A tn .tl he "7. crrh m learned carrncal n G ma da lrrr f h tes is of the considered This Court havino considered the rival far hnf h f h wh n he Act rt ha s t haha n hm rk disabilifrr =c ZOOI^ tlra I OOE n r State could n t Drescribe hioher disabilitvof 7Oo/o and ra,h i l6 allottinq to the Iocal cadres. The State cannot further classify the disabled persons by classifying them as 7Oo/o and above only for extending the preferential treatment. Therefore, the guideline No.22 annexed to G.O.Ms. No.317 dated 06-02-2021 is liable to be set aside only to the extent of prescribing 70olo disability instead of 40o/o disability. The 40% disability which is a bench mark disability prescribed under the Act, 1995 or the new Act,20t6". lFaalrrrarr+ (D). Counter affidavit filed on behalf of resDondent No.2 in Darticular Dara Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are e racted hereun "9. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that, after receiving the directions of this Hon'ble High Court, Government have once again examined the appeal of the petitioner. Upon further investigation, it was revealed that, earlier, the Superintendent, Govt. ENT Hospital, Koti, Hyderabad have certified that the physical handicapped certificates produced by (18) candidates are found to be fake vide Lr. Rc. No. 176IE2IENT/13, Dt. 79.02.2013 and the Superintendent of MGM Hospital, Warangal vide Lr. Rc. No. Spl/RMP/2013, Dt.08.02.2013. It was found out that, the petitioner has produced a fake physically handicapped 8 SN, J vP r0r2 2023 certif ic rtC (hearing impaired). Accordingly, a (lrirnina Case was iris 3 fil,:d by the department against ihe pt:titicner vide FIR llo 274/2073, Dt.20.06.2013. Petitiorrer was suspcnlcc then and reinstated as per the ordr:r o'' the Hon'trlr l- i3h Court dt. 20.06.2077 in W.P MP. No.227 78 of 2017 r t!l l> No. 18674 of 2Ot7, pending disciDlin.ry .ction against hirrr. The said Criminal case which is filed ac ainst the p:t ti()'rer is also pending. 10, It is ;r so revealed that, the petitioner h; s subn itted the sa n€ physically handicapped certificate rvhir:h t'as a disab lity l)r]rcentage of 53o/o at the time of allotme rt ol new lcr: r;;rdres. But, as per G.O Ms, No. 317 (lAD (SI F-l), Dt. 06.1 2.2021, only the employees with a disa rility percenla! o of 7 Oo/o or more are eligible to be ccrnsi(,ered under sp er:ial category. As such, the apr,eal of lhe petitirrnr:r vras rejected as he did not meet the req tired condi-i( n: f :r him to be considered under spec al (:ate{ )ory. The lrel i-ioner has submitted another p hys cally handi:apt t:rl certificate dt. 26.11.2021 issue,l b1' Di ;trict Medica B:ard, Siddipet district with a disabilit 7 p,srcer lage of 7O''j/o .[: is observed that, the petitioner eve] al- the: time of all)t non: of new local cadres also did no, sr-lbmi1 the said c,)rl l"icate dt. 26.71.2027 which has Cisa )ility perceT t ag€ of 70o/o. Moreover a criminal cas: i:; per- ding with ,t:9,t',7 to his appointment by subrrrittirg fake handi :a pp erd certificate.

11. I: is -i:spectfully submitted that, the petitic,ner has suppr:s:;ec material facts and has not appr)ac1ed this Hon'b e Hiclr Court with clean hands. The impuc ne<1 ac1 rons of the r.ls )lndents are well within the compliance ,{lth G.O L ,! - 9 SN, J wP tol2 2023 relevant Ms. No. 317 GAD (SPF-I), Dt. 06.L2.2021 and all other rules and regulations. Keeping in view of the Criminal Case pertaining to submission of fake pend in g handicapped certificate submitted by the petitioner earlier during hls appointment and pending disciplinary case against him, he cannot be considered under Preferential category under guidelin e no. 22 of G.O Ms' No' 317 GAD (SPF-I), Dt. 06.i2.2021. Hence, it is not feasible to consider the request of the petitloner' 12. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitloner was allotted to Mulugu District as per seniority only without any devlation. There is no provision to consider the nativity of the petitioner as G.O.Ms.No.317, GAD, dated'06'12'2021' 13. It is further submitted that, after the direction received by this office, the entire records pertaining to the seniority is verified and on verification of the seniority list the above facts came to light and allotting the petitioner to Mulugu Drstrict which was just and proper". DISC USSIO N AND coNc LUSION:- 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalF of the petitioner mainly contends that the petitioner secured the job as Language Pandit (Telugu) as disabled candidate having 53olo disability vlde proceedings dated 27-ll'2009 of DEO, Warangal' The learned counsel further submits that on the basis of the 53olo disability certificate produced by the petitioner, the petitioner was promoted as School Assistant on 19.06.2024' It is the specific l0 SN. J iP I0 t2 2023 grievance o' tie petitioner that the petition,: r's rer luest for allotment t,) :iiddipet District had been reject:d and the petitioner had belen allotted to Mulugu District vi,:te lhe inpugned proceedings '7tle:d 22.12.2021 of the District Education ll Officer (FAC) Hantrrrakc,nda, due to which the petitioner. has hardship to travel 250 l(lvs; per day. The learned counsei app€aring on behalf of tl e p:trtioner submits that the request r)f the Jretitioner for allocatior of t.he local cadre made through perr'i1,,,n"r'r appeal had been eje:r:ted unilaterally on 30.l7.2Oi'.2 by the 1.t respondent t erern on two grounds. Firstly, on thel grclnd that the petitior e' f eriled to produce certificate indicating dis lbility of 7 Oo/o or fi{re , which was a pre-requisite con,litioI to be considered u nc e- special category and that the p€rtitio rer later submitted :rotttr:r physically handicapped certificate i:sued by the Medicirl Ilcard, Siddiept District with jOoh cisability. However, tll( t,ef itioner had failed to submit th€ said c )rtiricate even at the t rr er of allotment of new local cadre:;. Siecc ndly, on the ground tt'al rJisciplinary case and criminal case are pending with regarrl trt 53o/o disability certificate furnish ed by the petitioner rrt tl.el time of petitioner's initial altpcintrtent on 27.11.2009 -Thr: 196pns6 counsel appearing on behal', of the t.]| l1 SN, J wP t0t2 2023 petitioner submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner continued since the year 2009 and even had been promoted AS School Assistant on L9.06.2024 and in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 02.08.2023 passed in W'P' No.46176 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above), which clearly indicates that as per Section 2 (t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the bench mark disability is prescribed and as per the bench mark, it is 40% disability, when the Central Act has prescribed 40% disability, the State cannot further classify the disability by fixing the bench mark disabilily at 70o/o and above only for extending preferential treatment' The case of the petitioner and the request of the petitioner for allocation of local cadre have to be considered duly taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had been promoted as School Assistant on 19.06.2024 on the basis of 53Yo disability certificate produced by the petitioner and the pendency of the criminal case should not come in the way for considering the petitioner's requestatthisjunctureandtherefore,thewritpetitionhastobe allowed, as PraYed for. I2 SN, J wP l0l2 2023

6. The j_-arred Assistant Government pleacr:r l.or iervices_I, appearing cr behalf of respondents placing re:lianr e on the avermentr; rr arde in the counter affidavit filcrd on behalf of respondert I\,1.2 contends that the petitioner had bee n allotted to Mulugu 1.ri.1ri.1 as per seniority and in view of th() criminal case pendin:l e(tainst the petitioner pertaining to s,ubrrission of fake physi:t ll1, -randicapped certiFicate by the oetition,rr during the petiticn:r s appointment initially in the i,ea. 2r109, the petitioner's rec,(tst to consider the nativity of .-,r: petiti)ner and to allot th€) )etitioner to the local cadre at Sidclipert c,rnnot be cons idered a rr cr ,he petitioner is not entiUed for a ny relief as present writ petition. prayed for rn the 7 A bar: pe:r-usal of the order oF the Division Br:ncl of this W.P. No. tl6l-,r6 rtf 2022 Court datecl ).t OB.2O23 passed in (referred tc lnc, extracted above), clearly indic aters t rat the State cannot jitr[rer classify the disability by fi>ling the bench mark disabil tt et 7 Oo/o and above only for extendir)g 1tref,:rential treatment. T-herefcre, this Court opines that none r>f tre crrounds raised in the c rcrer impugned dated 30.11 .2022 0f he 1,r respondent ar( le nable and are accordingly reject:,d in ti e light of the obsenzatiorrs of the order of the Division liench tf this l. l3 SN. J wP I0l2 2023 Court dated 02.08.2023 passed in w'P' No'46176 of 2022 (referred to and extracted above)' Insofar as the 2nd ground raised in the impugned order dated 30'11 '2022 of the lst respondent is concerned that there is pending disciplinary case and criminal case against the petitioner, the request oF the petitioner to consider the certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of petitioner's initial appointment in the year 2009 and to allow the petitioner to new local cadre of Siddipet District cannot be considered, thi Co rto Cri id ob n d L w cc quiltv. Admlttedly, as borne on record, with the same 53olo disability certificate which is alleged to be fake which was submitted by the petitioner at the time of appointment' the petitioner had been appointed as Language Pandit (Telugu) vide proceedings dated 27.|L 2009 of DEO, Warnagal' It is also borne on record that the petitioner had been promoted as School Assistant on the basis of very same 53o/o disability certificate which is alleged to be fake and therefore' the request of the petitioner for allotment of the local cadre may be reconsidered by the respondents in accordance to law' l4 SN. J vP r0 t2 20lt

8. Taking_i_1toc n dera n (a) Thr: aforesaid facts and circumstancel,r of the case, (b) -!-her submissions made by the learned counsel appearing orr behalf of the petitioner, ancl the learned Assistant Go'rernment pleader for Services-f, appearing on behalf of respondents, (c) Ttre contents of the counter affidavit f iled on behalf of re:s;rondent No.2 in particutar para Nos.,, to 13 (referred to and extracted above), (d) 'Ihe impugned proceedings vide proc. No.ES/ESi'Wlr/MULU,/LAPA/OO1B, dated 22.t2.ZO2t issued by the District Educational officer (FAC), Hanumakondit, (referred to and extracted above), (e) Ther impugned proceedings vide Memo hto.Spl/ Secretary Peshi/2O2L-897, Dated : 30.11.2O22 iss,ued by the 1't res;:ondent to the District Educational (;)fficer, Mulugu, Mrrluqu District, (referred to and exlracted above), --ac f l5 SN, J wP l0r2 2023 (f) The order of the Division Bench of this court dated O2.08.2023 passed in W'P' No' 46176 ot 2022' in particular para No.7 (referred to and extracted above)' The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to re-consider the decision made vide the impugned proceedings dated 22'L2'2O21 of the DistrictEducationalofficer(FAc),Waranga!andthe impugned Proceedings dated 3O.LL.2O22 of the 1't respondent in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner to allot the petitioner to new Siddipet District on the basis of thedisabilitycertificatefurnishedbythepetitioner indicating 53olo disability at the time of petitioner's initial appointmen t on 27.Lt.2oo9 as Language Pandit (Telugu)' by the Division in the light of the observations .made Bench of' this Court dated O2'O8'2O23 passed in W.P.No.46176 ot 2c.22 (referred to and extracted above) and duly considering the fact as borne on record that criminal case registered against the petitioner in the year 2O13 is pending final adjudication even as on date in the year 2O25, and the fact as borne on record that on the basis of 53olo tlisability certificate furnished by the I t6 SN. J \.'1, t0t2 2023 petitioner, petitioner was initially appointr:d on 27.L1.2OO9 ,rnd had even been promoted as School Assistant on 1.9.O5.2024 and pass appropriate orrlers in accordance to law, within a period of three (3) weeks from the dertr: of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicaite the decision to the petitioner. Hcrwever, there shall he no order as to costs. As a s equel, the miscellaneous pertitir ns, any pendinrl, n _lre Writ petition shall also stand r: osi:d, :): ' :\ To, 1 2 J 4 E o KKS BS //TRUE COPY// SD/-I!,. PRATHIMA I]EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTIIfN OFFICER N it' J!9-e1i1cin3l : )e r-r)tary to Government, School Education Depar tment, .lelangana S tate {),}cretariat, BRKS Bhavan, Lovifir TanX Br.rn'd F,oad, ' Hyderabad. The Director o School Education, Telangana State, Hyderrat,ad. The District [:dr-rcat onal Officer, Mulugu, Mulugu District One CC to SF I rllFIAN KUMAR B Advocate tOpUCl Two CCs to Gr: =6,* SERVICES I ,High Court for the State cf Tr,:langana Two CD Cop er; M HIGH COUR'T DATED:211A412.025 CC TODAY - .:'-"' //' -, .. t', : t,/:a,- l:: : I i '-r,: .ti! ,i ,{ ?025 i.r j - i:l -i ORDER WP.No.1012'o1' 2023 \.-.'; t. DISPOSING TFIE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSiTS 4 Tt\ b