High Court · 2025

8. Kudukala Srinivas, S/o Mondi, Age. 41 years, Oct Unemployed, Rl/o H No 3- - 9t Neelwai Village Vemaiapally' mancherial Telangana 504214' Qualifications. M.A., B.Ed., LLB, Community. SC

9. Nampelli Lenin, S/o Balaiah, Age. 39 years,.Occ. Unemployed, R/o:.-l.l N9 1- 18, bhigurumamidi mandal Rekonda Karimnagar 505474. Qualifications' M.Sc., B.Ed., CommunitY. BC-A

10. Jakkula Mounika, D/o Ramana, Age. 25 years, Occ. Unemployed, Fi/o. H.No' 1'1-9-16, Burahanpuram, khammam (urban), khammam - 507001' Qualifications. B.Sc., B.Ed, Community. BC-A

11.A. Srinivasulu, S/o Venkatramulu, Age. 38 years, Occ. Unemployed' RJo. H.No. 1-4-122132c1N1, Bharath Nagar Colony, Opposite Government, i I I I I I School, leeja, Jogulamba, Gadwal - 509127. Qualifications B Sc ' B Ed ,M.A.(English), CommunitY. BC-D 12. S. Vishnuvardhan, S/o Samali Mogulaiah, Age. 25 years, Occ Unemployed' - nlo. i f.lo. 3-96/1, High school Roid, Hakimpet4 Hakeempet, Mahabubnagar - 509350, Qualifications. B.Ed., Community. BC-B l3.Tekumatla Hussain Goud, S/o Uddandu, Age- 36 years, Occ Unemployed' - R6. HN; s-518gzqg qiKl-l|2, Sambani Nagar, Allipuram Road, opp-osite faimi CnanAra Gardens, Khammam - 507305, Qualilications l\"1'A, B Ed, Community BC-B

14. D.Radhika, D/o Raamulu, Age. 37 years, Occ. Unemployed' R/o H No 6-14' niiirpet, Kamareddy, TeianganS 503l02 Qualif ications M sc , B Ed, Community. BC-D

15. Veeramalla Krishnaiah, S/o Sathaiah, Age 34 years, Occ Unemployed, R/o' - H.f.lo. 1-99, B.C.Cotony Nampally, Dam-era, Nalgonda, Telangana - 508245 Qualifications. M.sc, B.Ed, Community. BC-B

17. Danikana Jyosthna Rani, D/o Sailu, Age.

16.Keelukathula Pandu, S/o Aniaiah, Age. 35 years, Occ' Unemployed, R/o - ri.rlo. e-ie, NlarsiredOyguda,'sivanndgudem' Marriguda, ladyrt! Nalgonda iJtrng"nu - soezas, Qullifications. M.A., B.Ed, Community. BC-B Occ Unemployed, R/o H.tto. 103:6411, Mohmad Kasim Basthi, Beliampalli, Mancherial - 504251 ' Qualifications. M.A., B.Ed, Community. BC-D 18 Pullaourla Navaneetha, D/o Chandra Reddy, Age. 34 years, Occ - Siddipet - 502114' Uneriployeo Fyo H.No. 4-6, Ganpur, Qualifications. M.A., B.Ed, Community OC (EWS) 19. Kurma Srishylam, S/o Balakistaiah, Age . 3{ yegls, O-c9 Unemployed, R/o - H.No i -t a,' Somakkapet, Chiplipictied, Medak, Telangana - 502314' Qualifications. M.A., B.Ed, Community BC-B -Th-oguta, -45years, 20- Chakali lvlanjula, D/o Pakkeeraiah, Age. 37 years, - n f'lo 1-1o', Nacharam, Kosgi, Narayanpet, Telangana - 509339' Unemployed, R/o -Occ. Qualifications. [/.A., B.ed, Community. BC-A ...PETITIONERS AND I 2 3 State of Telangana, Represented by its Chief Secretarylo Government, Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022 The State of Telangana, lts rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Sch6ol Education, Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5O0 O22 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Saifabad, Hyderabad, Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANOAMUS declaring that the failure of the Respondents to consider and implement the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devesh Sharma vs. Unron of lndia and Others (Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 and other "t related appeals, dated 1 1-08-2023) before proceeding with the promotion and appointment by transfer of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTS) to School Assistant (SA) posts is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Further, declare that the continuance of promotions under G.O.Ms. No. 108, dated 23.12.1999, without aligning it with the principles laid down in the Devesh Sharma judgment, is unsustainable in law. b. Set aside G.O.Ms. No. 108, dated 23.12.1 999, to the extent of Rule-3, Note-4, as being inconsistent with the Supreme Court judgment in Devesh Sharma and the constitutional mandate of fair and merit-based recruitment policies. c) Direct Respondents No.1 and 2 to: a)Reduce the promotion quota for Secondary Grade Teachers ( SGTs) to 2Oo/o or less and correspondingly increase the quota for direct recruitment of School Assistant (SA) posts to 80 % or more, in compliance with the ratio laid down in Devesh Sharma. b) lnclude the resultant vacancies in the dtrect recruitment process and notify them through the District Selection Committees (DSCs) in the upcoming recruitment notifications. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Suspend the operation of G.O.tvls. No. 108, dated 23.12.1999, to the extent of Rule-3, Note-4, as being inconsistent with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devesh Sharma vs. Union of lndia & Others (Civil Appeal No. 5068 of 2023 and related appeals, dated '1 1-08-2023) and dtrect the Respondents to reduce the promotion quota for Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) to 20% or less and correspondingly increase the quota for direct recruitment of School Assistant (SA) posts to S0percent or more and lnclude the resultant vacancies in the direct recruitment process in the upcoming recruitment notifications., pending the resolution of the above writ petition, Counsel for the Petitioners: M/S K. HARITHA, FOR M/S CHILLAW ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SANTHAPUR SATYANARAYA RAO, GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND WRIT PETITION No.6597 OF 2025 ORDER: bet HorL'bte Sn Justice P.sa.rL I(osh a) l{eard K.Haritha, learned counsel for the petitioners arrd Mr.Santhapur Satyanaraya Rao, learned Government Pleader for respondents. Perused the record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief

1. to issue dn oppropriote Writ, Order, or Direction, more porticulorly one in the noture of WRIT OF MANDAMT)S decloring thot the loilure of the Respondents to consider ond implement the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Devesh Shormo vs. Union of lndia ond Others (Civil Appeoi No.5068 of 202i and other reloted oppedls, doted 11-08-2023) before proceeding with the promotion ond oppointment by tronsfer of Secondory Grode Teochers (SGTi) to School Assistant (SA) posts is arbitrdry, illegol, ond violotive of Articles 74, 16, ond 21 of the Constitution of Indio. Further, declore thot the continuonce of promotions under G.O.Ms. No. 108, doted 23.12.1999, without aligning it with the principles loid down in the Devesh Shormo judqment, is unsustdinoble in low.

2. Set ostde G.O.Ms. No. 108, doted 23.12.1ggg, tothe extent of Rule-j, Note-4, os being inconsistent with the Supreme Court s judqment in Devesh Shormo ond the constitutionol mondote of foir and mprit boseLi tecruitment policies.

3. o,,"n ntl_::on* No.1 ond 2 to: I l l I I I I I I i I I . Reduce the promotion quoto for Secondory Grdde Teochers (SGTS) to 20% or less and correspondingly inueose the quoto lor direct rccruitment of School Assistdnt (SA) posts to 80% or more, in complionce with the rotion loid tlown in Devesh Shormo. . lnclude the resultont vocdncies in the direct recruitment process ond notify them throuah the District Selection Committees (DSCS) in the upcoming recruitment notilicotions.

4. Pdss ony other order.or direction thot this Hon'ble Court moy deem fit ond proper in the interest of justice.

3. Perusal of the record would go to shorv that all the petitioners before this Court are unemployed who had done B.Ed but have not got government employment. They are aggrieved in the present writ petition in so far as the ratio of quota fixed for direct recruits to the post of School Assistant and the prayer sought for is the challenge to the said ratio. Presently, the ratio of direct recruit is 33.33% and the remaining 66.66% is to be filled up by way of transfer and promotion

4. At the outset, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not have any case calling for interference from the writ court for the reason that the nature of the relief sought for is not which could be agitated upon invoking the writ jurisdiction. The reason for reaching to the said conclusion is for the fact that it is wholly a policy decision of the State Government to decide the ratio of direct recruits as School Assistants viz a viz the ratio of post to be filled up by transfer and promotion. This framing of policy 1S ',:e- exclusively within the domain of the State Government. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the writ in the nature of mandamus cannot be issued for the chalge of ratio. The grievance of the petitioner can be ventilated at the level of government arld the petitioners can approach the respondents for ventiiating their grievance either individually or in their representative capacity.

5. With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stalds disposed of, reserving the right of the petitioner to approach the respondents. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed SD/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA DEPU,TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( I SECTION OFFICER To, TJ 1 . The Chief Secretary to Government, Dr B R Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad - 5OO 022

2. The Principal Secretary to Government, Deqartment of School Education' Dr - e R Mntlkai Telangina Secretariat, The State of Telangana, Hyderabad - 500 022

3.TheCommissionerandDirectorofschoolEducation,saifabad,Hyderabad' Telangana

4. One CC to M/s Chillaw Advocates And Legal Consultants [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP for General Administration, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HYderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:1 010412025 ORDER WP.No.6597 of 2025 1HL S r47 a- o (( g Jut 2Ul5 :i * n :-rp,1iCH e\) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS €