S/o v. consequential proceedings 2nd

Judgment

2. 'l 4 The.State of Telangana .. rep., by its principal Secretary, School Education uept., Secretaflat. Hyderabad. The Director of School Education Dept., Government of Telangana, Hyderabad. The District Educationat Officer, Nalgonda district. The District Collector. DSC-1996, NSeonda dist. Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ order or orders, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus ...RESPONDENTS declare the impugned action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners to the post of S.G.T. in 1996 as per their merit and rank despite they are more meritorious as per the iudgment in W P'No'12724/2000 dt 31-07-2003 and as per the records and reports of the respondents though they have been recommended for appointments of the petitioners as was done in similarly placed persons who were non-petitioners and out of selection zone though they are less meritorious than the petitioners even vacancies were kept vacant in DSC-1996 in Nalgonda districtWhichisclearfromtheLr.No.l3543/8212004dt.03.o7.2oo4olthe4th respondent as per Court Orders and G'O'RI No 1294 dt 09-1 2-2004 and consequential proceedings 2nd respondent addressed to the 1st respondent vide Lr.Rc.No,298/Rc-2t2o14d1.14-11-2o14,Lr.Rc,No.298/Rc.212014dt.04-02.2019 andLr.Rc.No.2gStRC-2t2o14dt.26-10-2o2linfavorofthepetitionerswhichare availabletilldateisaSillegal,arbitrary'discriminatory'unjustandviolationof Articles14,16and2loftheConstitutionoflndiaandConsequentlytoholdthat the petitioners are entitled to be appointed to the post of S G T in 1996 DSC against the vacancies kept vacant in their favor as per their merit in preference to leSsmeritorioUscandidateswithallconSequentialbenefitslikepayfixation' seniority, promotion, OPS, etc', above the less meritorious candidates who were appointed IA NO: 10F 2023 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 directtherespondentstoconsidertheCaSeofthepetitionersforappointmentto the post of S.G.T. in DSC-1996 as per their ment and ranking and also Lr.Rc.No.298/Rc-2t2o14d|.14.11.2o14,Lr.,RC-No,298/Rc.2t2o14dt'04.02-2019 and Lr.Rc.No.2gBlRC-2t2O14 dt'26-10-2o21 of the 2"c respondent and DEO Lr.No.326/81/2o18d1.12-04-2o22andLr.No.326/81/2018dt.08.09.2022,pending disposal of the above W.P. lA NO: 2 oF 2023 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioners a) to add the submissions made in Paragraph-S (a to k) I ! ! : i ! I herein between the Paragraphs 15 and 16 in writ Affidavit and b) to ameM the main relief to issu€ a writ order or orders, more in the nature of writ of Mandamus declare the impugned aclion of the respofldents in not appointing the petitioners to the post of s.G.T. in 1996 as per their merit ard rank despite they are more meritorious as per the judgment in w.p.l{,o.1272 4l2o@ dt.o1- ol -2oo3 and as'per the records and reports of the respondents though they have been recommended for appointments of the petitioners as was done in similarly placed persons who were non-petitioners and out of selection zone though they afe less meritorious than the petitioners even vacancies were kept vacant in DSC-19g6 in Nalgonda district which is clear from the Lr.No.13543/82 t2oo4 dt.o3.o7.2oo4 of the 4th respondent as per court orders and G.o.Rt.No.1294 dt.o9-12-2oo4 and consequential proceedings 2nd respondent addressed to the 1"t respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.298i RC-212O14 dt.l4-11-2O14, Lr.Rc.No.298/RC-2t2O,t4 dt.O442_m1g and Lr.Rc.No.298lRC-212o14 dt.26-1o-2o21 in favor of the petiti,oners which are available till date by issuing speaking orders vide Rc.No.29glRC-2/2014 dt.o4.o7.2023 by the 2" respondent by cafling the connected records and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of lhe constitution of lndia and consequenfly to hold that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed to the post of s.G.T. in 1996 DSC against the vacancies kept vacant in their favor with all consequential benefits like pay fixation, seniority, promotion, oPS, etc., above the less meritorious candidates who were appointed Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M. RAMGOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER i l I I I I 5 E I I I I r i I l t t I ! i I I l I I i I i , ! I I I i l I ! I I I I ) I t I I I I l I j l : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.7Oal of 2o23 Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) as per their merit and rank despite of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.72724 of 2000 dated 31.07 .2003 declanng rhem as more mcritorious, the present Writ Petition is hled. 2) Heard Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learncd counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleadt:r for Services-I appearing for the respondents 3) karned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in response to DSC- 1996 Notification, pe tirioners herein havc applied, pzrrticipated in the selection process lor the post c.rt S(].T, secured marks 65,59,62.05,62.50,54.50,66 and 65 arrd obtairrcrl ranks I393, 2045, 1711, 1235,2316,72a1 and 1430 respecrivel-y, and were declared as qualihed to be considered for appoin trnt:n L to the said post. However, on account of adminis[rarivr: t:rror ancl as the appointing authority has not followed thc RLrlt: of [it:sclvation in lespect of thc candidates in proper mannr.r, I lt .. p(.llt ion(.rs \\.cre dcprived of selection and appointments at that point o1' Lime. As such, they approachcd Andhra prade sh Aclmrnisrrarjr,c Tribunal (in sl'rort 'TribunalJ as well as B.C. Commission. Hou.cvcr, pcnding adjudication leftover of of the matter, the selection was concluded with a 41 vacalcies of SGTs. Further, after DSC_199g Notification was issued, petitioners and others have approached the Tribunal and filed O.A. No.T722 of 20OO. Vide order dated

14.O3.2OO2, the Tribuna_l has dismissed the said O.A. Challenging the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before this Court vide W.P.No.12724 of 2OO2 and vide ordcr dated 31.O7.2OO3, the appeal was disposed of observing that Rule 22 was not followed and left it open to the Government to consider the ciaim of the petitioner's for appointment to rhe post of SGT.

3.1) Thereafter, the Government has issued C.O.Rt.No.1294, dated Og.l2.2OO4, giving authorization to appoint 37 BC candidates against the unfrlled 37 vacancies mcanr lor BCs. Instead of giving appointment orders to the petitioners and others, the Commissioner and Director of School Education viclc proceedings dated

21.12.2OO4 directed the District Educationai Officer, Nalgonda, to re-cast the selection into one selection tist and appoint the candidates if they are v/ithin the zone, rvhich is beyond the purport of G.O.Rt.No.1294, dated 09.12.2OO4, as n,el[ as the interim relief granted by the Tribunal. Thereafter, u,hen the petitioners hled C.A. No.232 of 2005, the Government had issuecl G.O.Rt.No.264, dated

19.04.2005, partially modifying G.O.Rr.No. t24, dated 09.12.2OM, and duly appointing three persons in order to avoid contempt ) i i I I i I I I I 4 1 I l -3 proceedings. Thereafter, in respect of one V.Bikshapathi, G.O.Rt.No.923, dated 26.10.2007, was issued even though said individual was not within the selection zone and got less merit than the petitioners herein. karned counsel has further contended that G.O.Ms.No. 1294, dated Og.12.2OO4, was not totally superseded but was partially modihed. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled lor appoin tment.

3.21 Though, the District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, vide letter dated 22.05.2014 has recommended to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of SGT in DSC 1996, but, respondent No.2, based on the recommendations of respondents No.3, stated that the petitioners are not under zone of considcration and thereby rejected their case. l,earned counsel has fur[her contended that though the Director of School Education sent proposal to Government on O5.03.2O21 and 26.10.2021 along u'ith a dctailed report and to pass orders lor authorizing the appointment of the petitioners, till date no orders wcre passed. B1,. drau.ing the attention of this Court to several letters and proceedings, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioners arc making elforts since 1996, yet, their case is not being considered lor appointment as SGTs in spite of several Court ordcrs and G.O.Rt.No.1294, dated Og.l2.2OO4. Therefore, Iearned counsel pral'ecl th is Court to issue suitable directions to thc rcspondcnr 4 authorities for issuing appointment orders to the pefltioners for the post of SGTs. G.O.Rt.No.264, 4) Per contra, the learned Government pleader has submitted that pursuant to G.O.Rt.No. 1294, dated, Og.l2.2OO4,and as per the directions of the Government, the commissioner & Director of School Education vide proceedings dated 2r. r2.2oo4, had issued guidelines/instructions to the Regional Joint Direcror o[ School Education, Hyderabad, and District Educational O[f]cer, Nalgonda, to veri$r the records regarding the eligibility of the candidates and if they are in selection zone. In pursuance thereof, a detailed report dated 1 1 .01 .20O5 was submitted and based on the said report, the modified dated 19.04.20OS, rvas issued duly of Sri G.Sheshaiah, Shaik Kasim and obedience o[ the ortlcr passecl bv the Tribunar in o.A. No-4r17/2006. dated 21.11.2006, (i.o.Rt.No.923, dated 26.LO.2OO7, was issued appointing onc V.Bikshaparhy as SGT. Learned Government pleader has contended that rhe Director of School Education, vide proceedings dared 04.O7.2023. passed a speaking order stating that the petitioner are not u.itlli, the zone of consideration/se.lection zone in BC_B categor], and it is not feasible to comply the interim order passed by this Court on 14.O3.2O23_ Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the wrir petition dulv vacating the interim order dated 14.03.2023. Thereafter, in appointment permitting B.Ashok. a i I i 1 I i i I a I I I I I I i i1 I -5 5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by respective counsel and perused the material on record. 6) As can be seen from the record, the recruitment for selection to the post of SGTs took place in the year 1996 and interviews were also conducted. Thereafter, initially 8O4 Teachers were appointed kceping in view the provisions of Ap State and Subordinate Services Rules. Subsequently, some more posts i.e. 435, 543 and g42 were hlled up in the subsequent recrutiments. Thereafter, the petitioners herein have approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') vide O.A. No.ZT22 of 2O0O & batch seeking appointment on the ground that Integrated list was not prepared and by piece meal recruitment they were denied the employment. In the said Writ Petition, initially the Tribunal passed interim ordcrs on O3.0<l-20O i directing ttre respondents therein to keep 37 posts of S(iT unfillecl in DSC-2001 till the disposal of the O.As_ ancl Ltrereafter the said O.As. were dismissed, against which, the petitioners have filed Writ petitions before this Court vidc W.P. Nos.12808, 12839 ard 12724 of.2OO2. Vide common order datcd 3l .07.2003, the Division Bench of this Court has disposed of the said \r.rir pcritions with the following observations: "[t is true thar the selection authority ought to have consotidated the vacancres in 1996 and prepared a common selection list, but the cir-cumstances impelled the selection authority to meal piece -6 meal recruitment duly following Rule 22. It is thr .,le rregula-rity that has been noticed that ,,, " "^:^^,,-- ,rLrs if a consolidated recruitment has been made, then the result *J:: "ffi,'I;T- fl :LII":J;H ;I::ij place, the hardship which was caused to,n.;,;;r.""." cannor be rectified by exclusively considering their cases either in the existing vacancies or future var s. Under those circumstances we are not inclined to interfe However we reave,. .r:: :i"Ti;#:::":i.,:J::::il cases of t].e petitioners grievance can be rectirred bv maling appropriate J::H:":eir 7) From the above, it is clear that the Division tsench was not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, hor,t evcr, the issue was left open to the Government for consideration. In of the said orders of the Division Bench, rhe has issued G.O.Rt.No.I294, Education (SE SER.VII) dated 09.12.2OO4, and deciding ro appoint 37 RC Relevant potion of the said G.O. reads as undcr: "5- Government have examined the matter and alter czrreful consideration decided to appoint 37 B.C. candidates of DSC l9c]6 of Nalgonda District against 37 reserved vacancies ol Scconclan, Grade Teacher posts with prospective effect. accordingly direct ttrat 3Z B.C- candidates of DSC l99tr of Nalgonda District be appointed against resened t.acancies of secondarJr Grade Teacher posts to them subject ro the condrtro. that their appointment is from prospective effect a.d the_r. shalr ,ot claim retrospective appointment (viz., seniority, lxation of pay and ";;; compliance Government Department, candidates. i I i t 1 I I t, 7 other benefrts etc.) from the year 1996 and they wiII be placed on apprentice for a period of two years from the date ofjoining duty.,, 8) Thereafter, the petitioners herein have frled O.A. No.95 I of 2OO5 & batch for implementation of G.O.Rt.No.1294, dated O9.12.2OO4, and to appoint the petitioners as SGTs and the said O.A. was dismissed vide common order dated 16.06.2006 passed in O.A.No.9S1/2o0S with C.A.No.232/20O5 dnd O.A.No.2l95l 2O0s with the following observations: " I 1. Thus. in the interest of smooth running of the administration and in the interest of not unsettling the position that has taken place in the subsequent DSCs, this Tribunal declines to interfere in the matter especially, in view of the fact that the High Court of A.p. has very specilically held ttrat such an e-xcrcise will not be appropriate at this stage. The Government issued the order in G.O.Rt.No.1294 and subsequentJy when it reahzed thc difficulties and the potential for litigation of such a decision taken in G.O,Rt.No. 1294, has rnodifled the order limiting it to only lhree persons, who came up in t]re merit aJter verilying thc records and appointments were given by the Director of School Educ:rtron and the D.tr.O.,' 9) In the interrcgnum period, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No 264, dated I9.04.2005, modifuing G.O.Rt.No.1294, dated 09.12.2OO4, and pcrmitting the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to appoint Sri G.Seshaiah, Sri Shaik Khasinr and Sri B.Ashok, the petitioners in W.p.Nos.12 g3g, 12724 and 12UO8 ol 2OO2. as SGTs and requesting to issue Speaking -----r i -8- - Orders by rejecting the request of Sri V.Bikshapathi, petitioner in O.A.No.58O2 of 2OO4, for appointrnent as SGT on the ground of delay in approaching the Government. Aggrieved by the said rejection, said Bikshapathi approached the Tribunal and fiLed O.A. No.41l1 of 2006. Vide order dated 21.11.20O6, the said O.A. was disposed of directing the respondents therein to consider the claim of the applicant therein i.e. Bikshapathi for appointment to the post of SGT as was done in case of three other incumbents while moditying G.o.Rt.No.1294, dated og.r2.2oo4.In cornpriance of rhe said orders, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.923, dated 26.10.2007, and permitting the Director of School Education, ro appoint Sri V.Bikshapathi as SGT at Nalgonda District, subject to his eligibility and other conditions. According to the petitioners, rhc said Bikshapathi was not within the zone of consideration as per his mcrit, rank and is less meritorious than the petitioners herein. l0) As gathered from the impugned order dated O4.O7.2023, tht marks secured by the petitioners hetein, who belongs to BC_B category, and the corresponding ranks before and after revision o[ selcation lisl are as under: Sl.No Name of the petitioner D. Sat 'anara B. Rama Rao Marks s€cured

65.OO

66.50 Old rank Ncn rank l i393 1235 1246 9 66_00 65-OO

62.50

59. OO

54.50 t28l 1430 171 1 2045 2316 1294 1450 1806 2231 2553 3) 4) T.Venkanna N. Narsaiah B.Saidaiah _6) D.Sravan Kumar 7l V.Ravinder 1 1) Placing reliance on the above, the petitioners may be right in contending that V.Bikshapathi, whose case was considered for appointment as SGT, is less meritorious than the petitioner. But, the record reveals that said V-Bikshapathi was considered under BC-D category whereas the petitioners belong to BC-B category. Therefore, the case o[ the petitioners cannot be equated or compared with that ot said V.Bikshapathi. Further, the selection of said V.Bikshapathi remained unchallenged by the petitioners. 12) That apart, admittedly, the recruitment pertains to the year 1996 and thc same rvas hnalized long back and even the last candidatc i.c. V.Bikshapati u,as appointed in the year 2007 whereas f the petitioncrs have tiled the present case in the year 2023 i.e. with / a delal,o[ 16 r'cars, u,hich is nothing but inordinate and cannot be countenanced. i3) While dcaling u,ith dela1 , a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appcal Nos. 1660 of 2O18 and 593 of 2016, dated 13.12.2021, has helcl that the delay of hve to eighteen years, in preferring a Writ -10- \ o Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has to be treated as inordinate. In the present case also, as stated supra, there is a delay of sixteen years on tJ.e part of the pedtioners rn approaching this Court. 14) That apart, all the petitioners are aged above 5O years. On this ground also, this Court is of the view that no relief can be gran[ed to the petitioners, at this stage. 15) For the afore-mentioned reasons, this Court is not inclined to enterrain the Writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous pctitions pending, if any, shall stand closecl. No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/. B. REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 3 One CC to SRl. N/. RAMGOPAL RAO, Ad\ocate IOPU cl Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES I ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] Two CD Copies BTM GJP ! i I I I I I I I j I I I I i i I : : l I i I : { i I l t I 1 ! ! : a i j i i t HIGH COURT DATED : 1 110412005 ORDER WP.No.7081 of 2023 o r*) :]TA t' Cr "- r-( i ..:/ --,t" 1ii SE? 7Sl5 ',-an,-.-'',."-- ;:::;-,_:-_)-- DISMISSTNG THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS //z ,/, / ,//