The High Court · 2025

Order

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Supplemental Selection Notification dt.08.03.2019, whereby the 4th respondent has been illegally appointed to the post of Post-Graduate Teacher (PGT) (Enqlish) in the place of petitioner by altering local status of the 4th respondent mentioned in her application without following due process or issuing any notice and not considering the petitioner's representation dt.30.03.2019, as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to set aside the Supplemental Selection Notification dt.08.03.2019.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the 2nd respondent had issued notificatlon No.2/2018 dt.30.06.2018 inviting applications tti6ugh online from qualified candidates to the Post Graduate Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions/ Societies; that in terms of para III of the said notification, the candidates were required to submit their applications online by ensuring that there are no mistakes in the application; that the petitioner had accordingly applied for the post of PGT (English) in Zone-VI and was issued with Hall-ticket No.303540; that a written test was held on 06.10.2018, wherein the petitioner had secured 2 I

124.50 marks; that the 2nd respondent had issued notlfication dt.05.01.2019 for certificate verification by displaying the provisional list of candidates picked up for such verincation in the ratio of 1:2; and that on the petitloner's name is shown as selected in the provisional list, she attended for certificate verification on 11.01.2019.

3. It is further contended by the petitioner that subsequent to the display of the provisional list of eligible candidates, who were called upon to attend for certificate verification, the 2nd respondent issued selection notification dt.09.02.2019, wherein the petitioner along with others were shown as having been selected to the post of PGT (English); and that subsequently, the petitioner, being appointed to the post in Mahatma Jothibaphule Telangana Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society for Women, was called for the certificate verification by the 3'd respondent in 1:1 ratio on 01.03.2019 and was asked to exercise web options in the order of preference of schools, which was duly submifted by her.

4. Petitioner further contends that after she having undergone the

aforesaid process/ firstly being shown as selected in the provisional list in li2 ratio, thereafter, being called upon to attend for certificate verification before the 2nd respondent, and her name being shown in the selection notification dt.09.02.2019 in the ratio of 1:1 and having called her to exercise web options in the order of preference of schools, all of a sudden, ,7 3 she was informed by the 2nd respondent that she has been ,.unselected,, for the said post and claimed that a mail to the said effect was sent to her, which was not received by her.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that getting to know about the mail sent by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner could note from the said mail that the 4b respondent herein being another candidate with Ha[ llcket No.506140, had allegedly selected her zone, as..O0.,i.e. ,non_local to Telangana' in her online application form; and that considering her representation dt.05.03.2019 about her non-local category mistake committed while submitting the application, the Board having apparently considered the said representation and selected the 4tr respondent in the place of the petitioner.

6. Petitioner further contends that the respondents-authorities could not have considered the representation of the 4h respondent dt.05.03.2019 to change the category by allowing the 4h respondent to correct the alleged mistake committed by her at the time of submission of application form by changing her zone from ',00,, i.e. .non-local Telangana' to 'local to Telangana, after issuahce of selection notification dt.09.02.2019: Petitioner also contends that even though the name of the 4s respondent does not find incruded in the serection rist and that the petitioner having not only attended certificate verification before the 3.d respondent in l:1 ratio on 01.03.2019, and was also called upon to 4 exercise web options for order of preference of schools, the 2nd respondent could not have 'unselected' her from the list of candidates selected.

7. Petitioner further contends that In the notification issued by the 2nd respondent in para III, it has been specifically mentioned that "candidates have to ensure that there are no mistakes while filling up the forms and that the Board bears no responsibility for the mistakes, if any, made by the candidates"; that as per Step IV of Para III of the said notification, after payment of fee and after filling the entire application form, the PDF application will be generated which contains the particulars furnished by the candidates; and that 'Note' 3 and 4 of para III, it has been categorically stated that 'information, if any, furnished by the candidate subsequently in any form will not be entertained by the Board under any circumstances'; and that if any lapse is detected during the scrutiny, the candidature will be rejected even though he/she comes through the final stage of recruitment process or even at a later stage.

8. Petitioner further contends that as per Note 4, it has been further reiterated that before uploading/submission of application form. the candidates should carefully ensure his/her eliglbility for examination and no relevant column of the application from should be left blank, otherwise application form will not be accepted -.v 5 7

9. On behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that since para III of the notification clearly stipulates that on payment of fee and filling the entire application form, the PDF of the said application form would be generated containing the particulars furnished by the candidate, the 2nd respondent could not have considered the representation of the 4th respondent to change her local status mentioned in the application form from "00" i'e' 'non-local to Telangana' to 'local to Telangana' Zone-VI, by which the 4h respondent was sought to be appointed to the post of PGT (English) by 'unselecting' the petitioner.

10. It is the further contention of the petitioner that since, the respondents admit to the fact of the 46 respondent having committed a mistake while filling up the application form, the authorities could not have considered the representation dt.05.03.2019 of the 4m respondent for them to undertake the aforesaid correction when the entire process, v/2', invitingapplications,issuanceofhall-tickets,conductingofexamination, declaration of provisional selection list in the ratio of 1:2, issuing of notification dt!05.01.2019 for certificate verifi cation, issuing provisional selection notification dt.09.02.2019 with the hall ticket numbers of the selected candidates,-the selected candidates being called upon by the 3'd respondent to come for certificate verification in 1:1 ratio on 01'03'2019 and thereafter, being directed to exercise web options for giving preference of schools, is completed' .-1 6

11. Petitioner further contends that the action of the 2nd respondent in 'unselecting' her, after being selected to the post of PGT (English) and in her place, recruiting the 4h respondent herein after the entire process of selection is completed, is clearly without jurisdiction and smacks of transparency, and thus, supplemental selection notification dt'08'03'2019, whereby the petitioner is stated to be 'unselected' and the 4b respondent isstatedtobe'selected'byconsideringaslocalcandidateisliabletobe set aside.

12. In support of the above contentions, the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No 22165 of 2018 dt.Lg.O7.2O2L and V.Vishnu v/s. State of Telanganl '

13. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the 2nd respondent is filed'

14. By the counter-affidavit, the 2nd respondent while denying the writ averments of the 2nd respondent illegally appointing the 4h respondent pursuant to the notification dt.30.06.2018 for the post of PGT, had claimed that the appointments have been done strictly in accordance with the existing recruitment rules and the regulations; and that the 4th respondent while applying online for the post of PGT (English) has erroneously selected her status as "00" which means 'non-local to Telangana'; and thus, the respondents-authorities have initially considered 'w.A,No.str of 2020 d1.L2.022011 7 her candidature as from outside Telangana even though she had secured 126 marks in her PGT examination and on the basis of merit, she has been included as a candidate from outside the State of Telangana in 1:2 ratio selection list and called upon to attend certificate verification on 17 .07.2019, whereas the petitioner secured 124.50 marks in her PGT examination.

15. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that after the 2"d respondent issuing provisional selection list in 1:2 ratio and calling upon the candidates to attend for certificate verification, the 4th respondent submitted representation dt.05.03.2019 to the 2nd respondent stating that though she had secured 126 marks. the candidates who got less marks than her have been provisionally considered; that on receiving the i aforesaid representation of the 4h responden! the 2nd respondent Board noticed that though the 4b respondent belongs to Zone-VI and being BC-E category. she was considered as a candidate from other than Telangana State; and as such, her name was not included in.the provisional selection list, while other candidates who got less marks than the 4th respondent have been included in the selection list.

16. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that in order to protect merit and as per the instructions laid down at para V(3) of the notification No.2/2018 dt.30.06.2018, the 2nd respondent selected the 4fr respondent by revising the selection list by including the hall ticket number 8 r.i of the 4b respondent in the place of the hall ticket No 303504 i'e' the petitioner herein, and issued supplemental selection notification'

17. By the counter-affidavit, it is further contended that since, the 4b respondent has secured more marks than the petitioner, she has been selected for protecting 'principle of merit', by correctinq the erroneous selection of Zone viz., "OO", while applying online for the post of PGT (English), as opportunity cannot be taken away for the unintentional mistake committed by such person, being once in a lifetime opportunity; and that the competition cannot be eliminated by virtue of the mistake committed by the candidates unintentionally.

18. In support of the aforesaid contention. the 2nd respondent had relied on the decision of this Court in W'P'No'26845 of 2Ol7 dt.30.11.2017.

19. Though a separate counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, after serving a copy of the same on the petitioner, the same was returned by ttre Registry, and hence, the same is not on record'

20. It is contended on behalf of the 4h respondent that the petitioner was shown in the provisional selection list which is on the basis of 1:2 ratio and as such, the petitioner cannot claim of herself being shown as selected candidate for the post of PGT (English); and that she having applied pursuant to the notlfication No.2/2018 and having secured more 9 marks than the petitioner, she is entitled to be appointed to the post of PGT (English).

21. The petitioner had filed a reply-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent.

22. By the reply-affidavit, the petitioner contended that the claim of the 4n respondent of petitioner's hall ticket number was shown only in the provisional selection list, which is 1:2 ratio is incorrect, and in fact, after verification, selection list in 1:1 ratio has also been issued; and that the petitioner was called by the 3'd respondent to come for certificate verification and on verification, was permitted to exercise web options to give order of preference of schools and thus, the contention of the 4th respondent that it is only at the provisional selection stage the petitioner,s hall ticket was mentioned, is incorrect.

23. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-Il appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2, Sri N.Bhoopal Reddy, learned counsel appeaiing on behalf of the 3d respondent, and Sri Mohammed Nawaz Hyder Ali, learned counsel appearing for the 4s respondent, and perused the record.

24. The issue involved in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the action of the 2nd respondent in permitting the 4th respondent to change/ alter the selection of category from "00" -'non-local to Telangana' to 10 'local to Telangana' after declaration of provisional selectlon list and also after issuing notification of selected list at 1:1 ratio by considering the representation dt.05.03.20l9 of the 4th respondent can be held to be valid and justified.

25. In order to appreciate the respective contentions urged on behalf of all the parties, it would be useful to refer to the notification under which selection is undertaken. The relevant clauses of the notification for consideration are as under: "PARA-III: HOW TO APPLY: A) LLOW TO UPLOAD THE APPUCATION FORM (i) The applicanb have to read lhe User Guide for Online Submission of Applications and then proceed further. I STEP: The Candidate has to visit the WEBSm www.treirb.telanqana.qov.in and a pply online, candidates have to ensure that there are no mistakes in it. The Board bears no responslbility for the mistakes, ff any, made by the candldates. II. STEP: After entering the details in the Portal, the applicant will proceed to payment gateway. III STEP: The applicant should pay the prescribed fee as specified- through any of the three modes viz., Debit Card, Credit Card and Net Banking. Separate instructions have to be followed for each mode of payment. IV STEP: After payment of fee and after filling the entire application form, the PDF Application will be generated which contains the particulars furnished by the candidates. The ID No in the PDF Application form has to be quoted for future reference/ correspondence. i) Hand written/Typed/Photostat coDies/outside printed Application Form will not be acceDted and liable for rejection. 11 ii) rii) For any Technical problems related to Online submission and downloading of Hall-Tickets please confdct 7032619292 (Call lime: 10.30 AM to 1.00 PM & 1.30 PM to 5.30 PM) or mail to [email protected]. For any General Queries please contact omce of the TREI- RB Phone No.040-233171210 ot 040-23317130 (Call Ime: 10.30 AM to 1.00 PM & & 1.30 PM to 5.30 PM) or mail to helpdesk [email protected]. NOTE:

1. The Board is not responsible, for any discrepancy in Bio-data particulars while submitting the application form through Online. The applicants are, therefore, advised to strictly follow the instructions and User guide in their own interest before submitting the application.

2. The particulars furnished by the applicant in the Applicant Form will be taken as final, and data is processed, based on these particulars only by Computer. Candidates should, therefore, be very careful in Uploading/Submitting the Application Form Online.

3. Incomplete/incorrect application from will be summarily rejected. The information, if any furnished by the candidate subsequently in any form will not be entertained by the Board under any circumstances. Applicants should be careful in filling- up the application form and submission. If any lapse is detected during the scrutiny, the candidature will be rejected even though he/she comes fhrough the final stage of recruitment process or even at a later stage.

4. Before Uploading/Submission of Application Form, the Candidates should carefully ensure his/her eligibility for this examination. No relevant column of the application form should be left blank, otherwise application form will not be accepted."

26. A reading of the notification, as extracted above, would clearly show that an applicant is required to read the user guide for online submission of application and to proceed further. The first step specifically states that the candidates have to ensure that there are no mistakes in the application, which is to be accessed through website; and that the 72 Board bears no responsibility for the mistakes if any made by the candidate

27. Further, Step 4 of Para III, as noted above, specifies that once onllne application is submitted, the entire application form gets converted into a PDF form, which thereafter would not allow any modifications. Further, Note 3 and 4 of Para III, would make it amply clear that the applicant should be careful while filling up the application form and submission and if any lapse is detected, the candidature will be rejected even though such candidate has come through the final stage of recruitment process or even at a later stage.

28. Note 4 thereof further states that before uploading/submission of application form online, the candidate should carefully ensure eligibility for the examination and no relevant column of application is left blank.

29. A conjoint reading of the steps enumerated and the note appended to Para III of the notification, would clearly show that it is the responsibility of the candidate while filling up the form and submitting the same online, to ensure'that the details mentioned therein are correct and verified before the same is uploaded. Once uploaded, the application getting converted into PDF and an ID being generated, no change is perm itted. --v 13

30. Though respondent Nos.2 and 4 claim that the 4h respondent having selected her category as "00" i.e. 'non-local to Telangana,, by mistake, it is important to note that pursuant to notification No.2/201g dt.30.06.2018, applications were required to be submitted online on or .before 08.08.2018. thereafter the hall ticket number being generated, examination being held, provisional selection list of 1:2 candidates with hall ticket numbers having been displayed on 05.01.2019, and selection notification being issued by the 2nd respondent on 09.02.2019. Up to this stage of issuance of the selection notification mentioning the hall ticket numbers in 1:1ration, the 4th respondent remained silen! and there is no complaint by the 4h respondent of she having selected her local category wrongly by mentioning "00" i.e. 'non-local to Telangana' instead of .local to Telangana'.

31. It is only after the selection nottfication dt.09.02.2019 was issued directing the hall ticket holders mentioned therein to appear for certificate verification by the 3'd respondent on 01.03-2019, the 4b respondent claims to have submitted a representation dt.05.03.2019, claiming of she having secured 126 marks being excluded from the selection list, upon which, the 2nd r€spondent claims to have considered the said representation and notii:ing that the respondent No.4 having wrongly selected the option of "00" i.e. 'non-local to Telangana' even though the t4 i\ 4fr respondent is of 'local to Telangana' and as such, her candidature should be considered for selection.

32. Though on behalf of the 2nd respondent it is contended that in order to ensure 'princlple of merit' is only considered and for the unintentional mistake, a candidate should not be made to suffer, and for the said reason, the 2nd respondent having considered the representation of the 4h respondent herein, it is not shown to this Court as to whether the 2nd respondent h'as shown similar generosity, approach and consideration in respect of any such omissions by other candidates.

33. Further, the notification in clear and categorical terms having specified that no corrections would be entertained once the application is submltted online, the 2nd respondent could not have considered the request/representation of the 4h respondent dt.05.03.2019 after the entire selection process has reached a final stage.

34. Though the 2d respondent by the counter-affidavit had claimed of the 4h respondent submitting a representation dt.05.03.2019, claiming of she having selectdd her Zone wrongly at the time of uploading the application form online, the said representation stated to have been submitted by the 46 respondent has not been filed along with the counter for being perused by this Court. Even assuming that the 4th respondent had seletted her local status wrongly at the time of filling up of the I I i I 15 application and submitted the same through online, the 2nd respondent could not have allowed modification/alteration of the local status subsequent to submission of application online, contrary to the conditions specified in Para III of the notification.

35. If only the 2nd respondent intended to extend the generosity, in order to claim that 'merit being the prime concern', such concession/benefit should have been extended to all other candidates, who could have committed mistake, while submitting application online, by issuing a general notification to the said effect. Adrnittedly, no such general notification is issued by the 2nd respondent and on the other hand, had considered the representation of the 4u' respondent selectively for the reasons best known to him, which action is contrary (o the conditions specified in the notification.

36. It is settled position of law that'Rules of the Game'cannot be changed in the middle and applying the said principle to the present case, it can be said that, once a notification is issued, the entire selection process should be governed by the conditions. contained therein till the selection is complete and ,no variation is permitted in between. [see K,Manjusree v/s. State of A.P.2 and V.Vishnu's case ( I supra)l 2 zoos 1:; scc srz 16

37. Though, on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that Para V(3) and para XII of the noti{lcation empowers the 2nd respondent to select a candidatr: urho is meritorious than the selected candidate and also the said decision of the 2nd respondent being final, it is to be noted that para V(3) thereof deals with impoftant legal provisions governing the recruitment proccss. Clause 3 thereof under the head'Government Orders' only state that the 2nd respondent would follow the relevant lav,rs, rules, regulations and cxecutive instructions and all enabling legal provisions of the Government of Telangana regarding the conduct of examinations for appointment to tire posts notified duly following the principle of order of merit with reference to relevant statutory provisions of Government of Telangana and ensuring that the whole recruitment and selection process is carried out w;th utmost secrec-y and confidential so as to ensure that the principle of merit is followed.

38. If one takes note of the said condition, the action of the 2nd respondent in selecting the 4th respondent by considering her representation d1.05.03.2019 after issuance of provisional selection list and selection list on 05.01.2019 and 09.02.2019 cannot be said as having been carried out wlth utmost secrecy and confidentiality and by following relevant laws, rules, regulations and execution instructions.

39. On the other hand, the law on the aspect of entertaining any changg;after th(r process is set in motion being well settled, the claim of t \ 77 the 2nd respondent of it having undertaken the selection process in transparent manner, and utmost secrecy cannot bc accepted as valid claim.

40. Insofar as reliance placed at para XII of the notification is concerned, it is to be noted that the decision of th<: 2"d respondent being final in respect of application is ln relation to acceptance of applications, rejection, as the case may be, conduct of exaorination and all consequential stages culminating in selection or otherwise of the candidate, which if it is only in accorCance with the conditions of the notification and not contrary thereto, 4L. Since, in the facts of the present case, the action of the 2nd respondent In accepting the representation of the 4th respondent dt.05.03.2019, after declaration of selection list and immediately thereafter, issuing supplemental selection notification'unselecting' the petitioner and selecting the 4th respondent, without such benefit being extended to any other candidate by issuing any general notification, in the considered view of this Court would only go to show that the entire action of the 2nd respondent smacks of transparency and shows selective approach adopted by the 2nd respondent to accon)modate the 4th respondent contrary to the conditions of the notification and also the law governing recruitment process, as noted hereinabove, thereby, making the process of issuing supplemental selection notification vitiated. I ( 18

42. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed; the Supplemental Selection Notification dt.08.03.2019 issued by the 2,d respondent is set aside; and the Serection Notification dt.09.02.2019 is restored. No order as to costs.

43. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed SD/-P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Buildings Saifabad, T.S .Hyderabad-022

1. The Principal Secretary, Backward Class Welfare Department, Secretariat 2. The Chairman, Telangana Residential Educational lnstitutions Recruitment Board(TREI-RB), 4th Floor, DSS Bhavan, Opposite of Chacha Nehru park, Masabtank, Hyderabad, Telangana 500028.

3. The Mahatma Jothiba Phule, Telangana Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational lnstitutions Society, tr/lasab Tank - Banjara Hills Road, Owaisi Pura, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Teiangana-500873. Hyderabad [OUT]

4. One CC to tr,4s. B RACHNA iff OOy, Advocaie tOpUCl 5 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES ll ,High Court ior the State of Telangana at 6 One CC to SRI N BHOOPAL REDDY, STANDTNG COUNSEL tOpUCl 7. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMED NAWAZ HYDER ALt, Advocate tOpUCl 8. Two CD Copies - BNT BS HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 ORDER WP.No.8967 of 2019 r l-, -\s-.\, i. -:' i.r ,.. 1.) \. -,.1 - 01 SEP 205 ;.' ti )..| ,1 ,,,r,.-,air/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \ o\u