The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI .'USTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJ ESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.91OS OF 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ol Constitution of India seeking the follou'ing relief/s:- "... an appropriate $'rit, order or direction more particularll' one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by declaring that the action o[ the Responalenrs in rlot considering m\ case for Notional date of ser,ro.itr on par $ith the Junior rn terms of proviso to rule 33(b) of Telangana State and Subordinate Sen'ices Rules as absolutell' illegal, arbitran', unconstitutional and violati"'e of Artrcle 14' 16 .r,J 2l of Constrttttion of Ir.rdia and consequenth direct the Respondents to grant the Notional date of appointmerlt u'ith effect from 04. t l.2O 1O or.r par \\'ith .Juniors as per Mcrit list in terms of the statuto(\' rules \\'ith all consequential benefits such as re fixation of paY scale, sen:oritY and other senice benefits in the interest ofjustice and pass such orher order or orders "'"

2. Heard Ms.Mantha Lakshmi Anusha, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Iearned Government Pleader for Serviccs-l for respondents. Perused the record

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, Iearned counsel for the petirioners submits that rhe lis in the present writ Pctitiol-l is squarely covered by the order dated 29.06.2017 passed by the Hon,ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21 193 of 2Ol7 and therefore, he prays this Court to pass necessary orders in this Writ Pelition

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I, did not refute the said submission.

5. Having regard to the submisslrrns of botir thc ir:arned counsel and for the reasor.'rs alike in thc orcier 29 06 2017 in W P No 21 193 of 2017, the Writ Petition is disposed oi directing thc 'cspondents tcr accord notional senioritv to thc Pctitioners iu the c:rdre ol Secondary Grade Teacher 1'rom lhe date of appoinlment of tht'ir- Juniors t e' '

04.71.2010 'lherc shall be no order as to cosls' Asa st:qltc'i. r',riscell:rnerlu:; :lpplical irrt ts pcncltns: if rlnf in this Writ Petition, sharll stand closed //TRUE COPY// \ SD EpurY D /.V.KAVITHA REGISTRAR 1 b..r'o* oFFrcER Slecretariat, Saifabad, The PrinciPa Secretary, School Education DePart Hyderabad, State of Telangana Th e Director of School Education, HYderabad, Telangana The District Ed ucational Officer, Maha bubabad District, l'elangana U ne CC to M/s IVANTHA LAKSHMI ANUSHA, Advocate [oPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hvd erabad. [OUT] CD CoPies

6. Two W (Alo ng with a c opy of the order dated 29.06.2017 in \r1rP.No.21193 of 2017 To 2 ?> 4 PSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER WP.No.9105 of 2025 z1 ,/.1y tE ) tri /(. ,!,, /i: () i -v a i- -1' lBJlJ}l 26 t) CIA eO - DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 0 )fr \?'i i\t HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT & HON'BLE DR JUSTICT SHAMEEM AKTHER W.P. No. 21193 of 2017 ORDER:-(oRnL) (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kajt) This writ petition is fited by the Government seeking to set aside the order dated 21 .04.2016 in o.A.No. 34 0f 2015 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the O.A. fited by the respondent Nos.1 to 14 herein, was attowed. The petiUoners herern are the Government and responclent llos.1 tc i.i herein are the appiicants. Brief facts are that a i.lotification dated C6.12.2C08 was issued for recruitrnent to the posts of Teacher s ali over the State. Respcndent Nos.l to l4 v/ere among th. candidates who had appLlei fcr t-he oosts of Teachers i;- ilizamabad District- The respondents wei'e successful in the vi iitten test and provislonaily seiecied oi 04.1 1 .2010. l,r purs..ance of the setection, aiI the candidates ha1/e joined service, except (15) candidates, inctuding the respondents herein who are '14 in number. The reason for not appointing the respondents is that they passed qual.ifying training course i.e. Teachers Training Certificate (TTC) from private institutions whjch were not recognized. On this ground, the petitioners - Government withhetd the setection of the respondents in order to verify and arrive at a conctusion whether they shoutd be appointed

2. sKK.J & Di.S.\.r \\P I L l9.r lirl- or not. ln the State, at that point of time, severat Teacher Training Centres had cropped up, apart from the Governmei-rt Teacher Training lnstitutrons. Several candidates underwent trarnjng in private institutions which are not recognized by the Government, and for such candidates, the petitioners have conducted crash course' for six rnonths in Governmer t institutions and those candidates who weTe successfuI rn the crash course were made etigibte to be consrdered fr,r appoint.:l-er-: i: i--. ,r^,:-, :.f -.:a:i..:i-r. .I ari l -r:l' ljstricl:t, similarl,' iria::; r:':r:aia; s'.rjjeil rr pn;,r:: r'. ::.-.'ons ani underwi:r ci-.isi a,)itrse, aJ:5 y/et c treated r: iirgr rte and glven a , i--rl r Jrder,l. er.epI llizarra 5a ci f,::'.r1':t. The District Seiectrorl Con m:ttee, lirzamabad Dist: rict raised certain a i.t :_) la re3.1-ilrnq ri-1s issue, as ii r-L.suli. t..i it ght responc,.r:: /,ai': :,"1vr5;l)aalty seiecteat, tfe) ac.iic not appointirc r. ali:i a )..i 'i i: a t, i.r rt Co rrr.n':;sltleT an I Directo' c: 3:iccl .i!- ani tl-..: Cc',r:Tline-i The respondents, having waited for the ctarificatio-r from the petitioners for a long time, fjted O.A.No. 8113 cf 2010 and batch, and the Tribunat, by order dated 19.11.201C, disposed of the batch of O.As. directing the petitioners t,r consider the cases of the respondents who appeared for DSI: 2008 setections for the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers for reteasing their appointment orders, and pass appropriat(l 3 SKR,J & DI,SI J \rP lu9-r:0ll orders, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ln pursuance of the said orders, the petitioners issued proceedings in Rc.No.1 1j1/83/2011 , dated 02.11.2011 rejecting the request of the respondents for appointment to the posts of Secondary Grade Teachers. The reason for the rejection is that the quatifications acquired by the respondents are not in tune with the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No. 161 , dated 06.12.2008, which governs the recruitmeni of DSC 2C09. The proceecling: Catrd C2.l.l .2011 were challenged in 0.A.No. 599 of 20.12. anci the TribunaI atlowed the said O.A. by order Cated 2i.08.2013 seitj.ig asjde the rejection orders dated 02.1'1 .2011 issued b-v the District Educationai Of l''icer. llizamabad. Su irsequent to the orders passed by the Tr-jbunaI in O.A.No. 599 of 2012. the Commissjoner and Director- of Schoot Education add ressed a letter to the Prjncjpal Secretary to Government, SchooI Education Department on ?2.04.2014 stating as fottows: "Hence, the etjgibitity rutes retatjng to admission of candidates in Teacher Training lnstitutes and comptetion of course were fottowed as were ln force at the time of admission of these candidates into Crash Course and atso at the time ol comptetion of their course. At both the instances, the rutes appticabte to the regutar Teacher Trainjnq Course Candidates were apptjed to those candidates also, which makes the candidates of Crash Court stand etigibte on par with the candidates who have compteted Teacher Training Certifjcate Course on regutar mode,,. 4 SKK.r& Dr S \.1 \\t I Lqr :!l Subsequent to the said proceedings, further proceedings wer3 issued by the Government in Memo No.28616/5E- Ser.lll A212011, dated 28.07.2014 directing the Commission€r and Director of School Education to appoint the respondents as Secondary Grade Teachers jn Nizamabad Distrlct, and thereafter, appoinlment orders came to be issued to the respondents on 06.08.2014. Accordingty, the respondent.s joined duty as Secondary Grade Teachers and are working a,s such as .r icd I i. Ti:: e'i'ier. i,'la la:DorCelli: '-'/ei'l a3ti:=u:r:i by tl'e conditrc: i,::,;s:,1 r: i'.cin f']3.{ix) ln tire appc:': t lir.i-i i oTde:-s dated Ci.!'i:.2'114. .,h:c' T..r(is a5 i:;liows. "{,),, ii,:l::rc aDirir:ai'::nail rcl :e eliglbie fc' :ai ''lil::fixatii)n of ".:'i!r'f ,, i,.i ).f ,', li a-,rer !'ra':CCE 5el'1.i.'ri a.i la Cates) )r mar:rial i;ele'r: :;r tne p.tssent caaji-e. " Being aj,.;:-i:"':'il, :r:e rcsp'.::lcents iiied the or-eser" O.A'No.:4 of 2015 ctuesiicijrrg tiie aDove condltion as iiiegal ard arbitrary on the grouncJ lhaL they aTe not at fault in not atlowing the respondents to join the post of Secondary Gracie Teachers immediatety, atong with the other candidates who were setected in the same recruitment. Though they were atso provisionally setected tike the other candidates, thCy were not given posting orders in view of the doubts raised by the petitioners themsetves and hence the delay 1n not joini;tg 5 SKK.I& Dr S .J \\'P ll l9l t0lr the posts is attributable to the petitioners, but not to the respondents. The contention of the respondents before the Tribunat is that even the Commissioner and Director of Schoot Education, white accepting the orders of the Tribunat, has ctearty state tn his proceedings dated ZZ.O4.ZO14 that the quatifications possessed by the respondents i.e. six months Crash Course training preceded by Teacher Training Course from private institutjon ls valiC acccrdjng tc Rute (4) ol the rrles issued in G.O.Ms.l.{o. 16i whjch governs DSC Z0OB seiection process. Once the respondents are comlng v/ithjn ihe nli-vjelv of the Rutes fcr being eligible to be appointed, denyine them the benefit of appointment at the appropriate time is illegal. and arbitrary. lt is further contended that ha,;ing appoinied the respondents subsequent to the ctear finding given by the Tribunal in terms of the rele,rant Rules. the a.tion of the petitioners in depriving them of the seniority on par wlth their batch-mates who were given appointment orders ln November, 2010 is highty unjust and ittegat and the conditron taid down in the appointment orders of the respondents woutd be tiabte to be dismissed. The learned Government pteader for Servjces appearing on behatf of the petitioners, submits that respondent Nos.j to 14 have atready accepted their appointment orders and the 6 SKKJ & Di !t.l \\? lt10: t1,11- conditions taid down therejn that they are not entitted tc seniority on par with thejr batch-mates, as such they cannct ask for the retief of seniority on par with their batch-mate:. Moreover, in their dectaration -cum'unde rtaking certificates, they mentioned that they shat[ abide by the conditions laid down rn Government Memo No. 26302/PE.SER.ll/A1 12011, dated 17.'12.2012, and therefore, the respondents cannot now turn around and seek for the beneflt of seniority. Howevel-, the Tri:unal i3ncreC al: i:rese facis wl''ie alio"ving the O.lr. fited by i,he re-,:or'i:::liI It js r.-,t ;i"r rliscrtl:: thal the i-espotll:'r1:s were provisic.:aii-, seiecied ;;av-u.ack :t.i Nover-nber. 2108, btlt appoint..:,..:': cl-ilet', \^J!:t,: i':\JC'd ic l.h::m. l'ol'l: ':r', l'Ly after the 1nt:1,.,::::-on oi t:ne "fr'ibunai anc 1:olseal!li:i:-:;' on tle interve r::r.r ,:l i:': C(] l |l'rssiont'- a,-ral Diie',ll: : Sc hcr: L Educati:r ;s:,-.: :C ai:: I rr :r: en'- ordeis on C)5. C8.2i l - As re.oiaeC r:a',',:1, li alearii es-.:lbLjshes tl-,a; onty n Nizamabad District, administration had raised certain doubts regarding the quattfications possessed by the respondents, whereas in the erstwhile combined Sate of Andhra Pradesh in att other 22 Districts, the quatificatlons of TTC fottowed bY Crash Course training of six months appointment orders were gtven on were accepted and the basis of thor;e qua Iifications and atl the candidates were setected, and a'e 1 sKK.J & Dr SA.I \\1'tlt9l trrl working as such without any demur. Onty in case of Nizamabad District, 15 candidates, inctuding the respondents Nos.1 to 14 herein, were deprived of the benefit of receiving appointment orders. Therefore, insofar as the issue of detay in issuing the appointment orders to the respondents is concerned, it is purety attributabte to the petitioners. It is settted law that when recru]tment has taken ptace and setections have been finatized and there is a detay in issuance of the appointment orders to certain candidates due to admjnistrative reasons or pendency of Court cases, such detay cannot be attributabte to the candtclates. lt js settted taw that such type of candjdates, who are appoin:ed at a later point of time, aTe entjtted to the benefjt of serioritr* on par with their batch-mates. We note, the Tribunai has rehed upor: the luc.lgrrtents of the Suprerne Ccurt reported jn Surendra Narayana v. State of Biharl and Balwanth Singh Narwala And Others v. State of Haryana and Others2. ln vjew of the facts recorded above, and the settted [aw, we are of the considered opinion that there is no discrepancy in the impugned order passed by the Tribunat. Hence, we find no merit in the present writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed confirming the order dated ' r 998(5) scc:{6 - 2008(7) 216 3 :(KJ&D:i'l \\ l, lLLtr lr r_ I 71 .04.7016 in O.A.No. 34 of 2015 passed by the Tribunat ConsequentLy, the petttioners - Government are directed t() compty with the directions qiven by the TribunaI in 0.A'No.3'l of 2015 within a period of eight weeks from the date c' receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequet, Misceltaneous Petitions, if any pendinq, shatl stand disposed of as infructuous.

29.06.72',7 SURESH KUI,IAR KAIT, J DR. SHAMEEI'\ AKTHER, .J