D. Parvathi v. '1 . The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Orders, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the 1st respondent in not considering the request for substitution of MA(Hindi) education certificate of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut which is a recognized University by the UGC in the place of Sahitya Ratna Certificate furnished through representation d1.08.12.2023 against the impugned Memo.No.259/RP-11212017 dt.04.11.2023 of the 1st respondent while appointing less meritorious candidates is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to substitute the MA(Hindi) education certificate of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in the place of Sahitya Ratna Certificate and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of School Assistant (Hind i)/Language Pandit (Hindi) as per her merit in any one of the existing vacancies as observed by this Honble Court in its Judgment in W. P. No.3229212022 dt.31 -08-2023 with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 'f OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1st respondent to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for appointed to the post of School Assistant (Hindi)/ by considering the M.A.(Hindi) Certificate of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut without reference to the impugned Memo.No.259lRP-11212017 d1.04.11.2023 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.NARASIMHA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2TO5 : GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.32O7 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: '...to issue a Writ Order or Orders, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the lsr respondent in not considering the re quest for substitution of MA(Hindi) education certificate of Chaudhary Charan Singh Universitl, Meerut which is a recognized Univcrsity by the UGC in the place of Sahitya Ratna Certificate furnished through representation dt.OA.l2.2O23 against the impugned Memo.No.259lRP I /2/2017 dt.04,l1-2023 of the 1"' respondent while appointing less meritorious candidates is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, violativc oI Articles 14 and 21 ofthe Constitution of India and set asicle the same and consequently direct the l* respondent to substitute the MA(Hindi) education certificate of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut in the place of Sahitya Ratna Certificatc and further declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of School Assistant (Hindi)/ Language Pandit (Hind) as per her merit in arty one of the existing vacancies as observed by this Hon'ble Court in its Judgment in W.P.No.32292 /2022 dt.3\ OA 2023 with all consequential benefits..."

2. Heard Sri P. Narasimha, learned c.ounsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Commission, for respondent No. 1.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuance of the Teachers Recruitment Test-2O17 vide Notihcation Nos.52/2017 and 5+ 12017, the petitioner participated in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination, secured 36 and 40.954 marks in I - 2 PK, J W.P.No.3207 of 2024 respect of the posts of School Assistant (Hindi) and Language Pandit (Hindi) respectively, and on the basis of her merit, she was called for certificate veri{ication in 1:3 ratio, and the petitioner attended the said process accordingly. However, though the petitioner is within the zone of consideration, the respondents have denied her appointment, while the lesser meritorious candidates were given appointments. Therefore, the petitioner submitted her representations dated Oa.O2.2O22, 70.O2.2022 and 3 t.07.2O23, ventilating and seeking redressa.l of her grievance, and since she never received a response from the respondents, the petitioner was constrained to hle W.P.No.32292 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated

31.Oa.2O22, directing the respondents to consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioner dated 31.Oa.2O22 and pass appropriate orders within lour weeks. However, the respondents have rejected her claim vide impugned Memo' dated O4. 1 1.2023, holding that the qualification possessed by the petitioner, i.e., Sahityaratna from Hindi Sahitya Sammeian, Allahabad, lacked equivalence with the prescribed qualification.

4. It is further submitted that the petitioner possesses a Master Degree, viz., M.A. (Hindi), obtained from the Choudhaqr Charan Singh University, Meerut. However, the same is not being taken into -7 3 PK, .] W.P.No.3207 of 2024 consideration. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted another representation dated 08.12.2023 to respondent No. 1, and on considering the same, the office of respondent No. 1 communicatcd with the petitioner and asked her as to why she failed to furnish the said certificate instead of the Sahityaratna Certificate. lt is submitted that even during the time of certilicate verification, the aforesaid qualification possessed by the petitioner was neither objected nor was the status of equivalence intimated to her. As such, she was under the impression that her Sahityaratna Certihcate was equivalent. Despite the same, the respondents are not considering the case ol the petitioner for appointment to the post of School Assistant (Hindi)/ Language Pandit (Hindi). Therefore, learned counsel seeks indulgence of this Court to pass necessa-ry orders in the present writ petition.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner had earlier fiied W.P.No.32292 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 3 1.08.2023, directing respondent No. 1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated

31.07.2023 and to pass appropriate orders within four weeks. In complialce thereof, respondent No. 1 constituted a Subject Bxpert Committee for examining the equivalence of the Hindi qualiircation, and after careful examination, the Committee has taken a decision 4 PK, J W.P.No.3207 of 2024 that the qualilication of Hindi Vidwan/Madhyama/Visharada is not equivalent to the degree recognized by the University Grants Commission, which has been prescribed in the Notilication. As such, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by respondent No. 1 vide impugned Memo dated 04.1 1.2023. Despite the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, requesting substitution of M.A. (Hindi) Certificate of Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, in the place of Sahityaratna Certificate, and to appoint her as School Assistant (Hindi)/ Language Pandit (Hindi). It is submitted that the Notification clearly prescribes that a candidate shall possess under-graduate degree/ post- graduate degree with Hindi as one of the optionals. As such, the petitioner, despite being aware of the same, failed to specily in her online application about her possessing the M.A. (Hindi) certificate, and she also failed to produce the said certihcate, even at the time of the first and fifth spells of certificate verification, and only after the conclusion of recruitment process and filling up of the vacancies with the eligible candidates, the petitioner submitted her M.A. (Hindi) Certificate on O8.I2.2O23. As such, the claim of the petitioner for appointment as School Assistant (Hindi)/ Language Pandit (Hindi) cannot be considered. Therefor:, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. /. - 5 PK, J W.P.No.3207 of 2024

6. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

7. A perusal ol record discloses that the petitioner had participated in the TRT-20 17 Recruitment, appeared in the written examination and secured 36 and 40.954 marks in respect of the posts of School Assistant (Hindi) and Language Pandit (Hindi) respectively. However, the respondents have rejected her claim for appointment vide impugned Memo dated 04. I1.2O24, on the ground that the petitioner possesses a 'Sahityaratna' Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1 has constituted a Subject Expert Committee, and a,fter due examination by the said Committee, it has been established that the aforesaid qualification of the petitioner is not equivalent to a Bachelor's Degree recognized by the University Grants Commission, as prescribed in the Recruitment Notificaiion. Hence, the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment cannot be faulted with.

8. It is the further case of the petitioner that apart from the Sahityaratna Certiiicate, she also possesses a Master's in Art (Hindi) Degree from Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut, which is admittedly recognized by the University Grants Commission. Here it I I - 6 PK, J W.P.No.32O7 of 2O24 is pertinent to note that the petitioner, in her online application, had failed to disclose thc fact of her possessing the M.A. (Hindi) Degree, and only stated that she possesses the Sahityaratna Certificate from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which is admittedly not equivalent to the qualification of Bachelor's Degree. Further, it is also not in dispute that the petitioner also failed to produce the said M.A. (Hindi) Certificate during the different spells of certificate verification.

9. As such, in view of the fact that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed under the Notification with the initially produced qualification, and also as she failed to disclose or produce her M.A. (Hindi) Certificate at the relevant point of time, this Court does not Iind any merit in the present writ petition, and it is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Pe tition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs SDI A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, One CC to SRI P.NARASIMHA, Advocate lOPUCl One CC to SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC)' [OPUC] TwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|CESl,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana' Two CD CoPies.

2. J. 4 BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2411112025 cH\ S ( O 1i -fi;1 \1.,/. 1 0 [[B ? 026 * ORDER WP.No.3207 of 2024 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS @t q1) .l ^ \et