nnrmiriinalli Swaroopa v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA;'ESHUIAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.4733 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the record' With the consent of both the parties' this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission'

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner belong to SC category and completed B'Sc and B'Ed and as she qualified and eligible for the Post of SGT, she SGT notihed under DSC-2008 applied for the Post of Notificationdated06.|2.2oos.Havingconsideredher application, respondents issued Hall Ticket bearing No.2l20olll4glandinthewrittentest,thepetitionersecured

49.5 marks and her rank is 4,300'

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents by issuing G'O'Ms'No'28' dated 29'Ol'2OO9 reseryed 30% of the notified posts in favour of D'Ed candidates' Aggrieved by the same, B'Ed candidates' who are similarly situated, filed W.P.No.18683 of 2OO9 and batch' wherein this 2 Court granted an interim order dated O9.O9.2OO9 suspending the Rule which reserved 3O%o of the notified posts in favour of D.Ed candidates

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents prepared lOO7o selection list (B.Ed+D.Ed) without reference to 3OYo reservation. As per this seiection list, 49 marks is the cut-off for SC (Local) (Women) candidates. The respondent authorities by mistake shown the petitioner under 'OC' category, for which 61 marks is the cut-off. Therefore, the petitioner was not found place in the said merit list. With a view to implement G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 29.O1.2OO9, the respondents prepared 7Oo/o list (B.Ed+D.Ed) and 30% list (D.Ed only).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submit that on

17.O9.2OO9; respondent No.2 rectified the mistake and updates the records concerned by showing the petitioner under SC category. Even after updating her category, she u,as not found place in tLre 7 Oo/o as 5 1 marks is the cut-off for SC (Local) (Women) candidates. Later, in the month of November, 2010, the respondents f-rlled up SGT vacancies both under the lists of TOoh and. 3Oo/o. Due to lack of sufficient number of eligible candidates, respondent could not hll up 18OO notified vacancies of DSC-2008. Subsequently, having considered all the relevant factors, the Division Bench of this Court granted an interim order dated O8.O2.2O24 in W.P.No.18683 of 2009 and batch directing the respondents to consider the case of the B.Ed candidates for appointment of SGT on contract basis as was done in the case of B.Ed candidates, who are the natives of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent authorities implemented the interim order of this Court by issuing G.O.Ms.No'14, dated 14.02-2025 and issued appointment orders to the eligible B.Ed candidates, but the petitioner was not given appointment though she secured

49.5 marks rather the candidates who secured 49 mare were appointed. 7 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made severa-I representations to respondent No'4 on 30.O9.2024, 19.1O.2024, 26.1O.2024 and 07.11.2024 requesting the respondents to consider her case for 4 T appointment as SGT under SC category' Having considered by representations, respondent No.4 forwarded the case of the petitioner to respondent No.2. But, -without considering her representations, respondent No.2 issued appointment orders to the less meritorious candidates Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents submits that the respondents would consider the representation submitted by the petitioner on 19 .1O.2O24 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with 1aw.

9. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and without going into merits of the case, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the latest representation dated I9.1O.2O24 submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order 5

10. With the above direction, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. . As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- B.G.VYJAYANTHI SISTANT REGI SECTION OFFICER To, The Principal Secretary, School Education De Saifabad,state of Telangana, Hyderabad-50002 rt ent, Secretariat,

2. The Director of School Education, B Block, 2, Telephone Bhavan Rpad' Saifabad, HYderabad -500004

3. The District Collector, Collectorate, Subedari, Hanumakonda-506001 4. The District Educational officer, Hunter Road, near District court, Postal Colony, Subedari, Hanumakonda - 506001

5. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS BOBBILI' Advocate' IOPUCI 6.TwoCCstoGPFoRSERV|CESl'HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana

7. Two CD CoPies. BSK KV w4. HlGH COURT DATED:1210312025 in: sr,q, t, .-) t) \ -\). vi, 2 5 tlri 2 il25 z a D6sp:.1.;t\gO * ORDER WP.No.4733 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS *\s\{