High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 ol the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to rssue a Writ, order or direclion more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Proceedings Rc'No' 4638/83/W.P.No.32083t2017, dr. 26.10.2017 0f the District Educational officer and Ex-Officio District Project officer, sarva shiksha Abhiyan, Nizamabad District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia apart from contrary to the orders of the Honble High Court which was confirmed by the Apex court and consequently hold that the petitioners are entitled for selection and appointment to the posts of Language Pandits (Telugu) pursuant to their merit and ranking obtained in DSC 2006 in the existing or backlog l l i I : l I vacancies with effect from the date on which the other s:lected candidates were appointed to the said post with all consequential bt nefits' ( Prayer is amended as 51867t2O1711 per C.O dt. 18/'10/2023 in A 0312017 (WPMP l.A. NO: 2 OF 2017(WPMP. NO: 39952 OF 2017t Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the ( ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron, the High corr t may be pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider the clainr; of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of language pundits (Telu 3 r) in the existing or backlog vacancies by suspending the operation of the impugned proceedings Rc.No.4638/83/W.P,No.32083120'17, dt. 26-1O.20'17 of the District Educational officer and Ex-Officio District P r, rject officer, sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Nizamabad District. ( Prayer is amended as per C.O dt. 1811012023 in lA 03/2017 (WPMP 51867t201711 l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WVMP. NO: 4s14 0F 20171 Between:

1. The District Educational Officer, Nrzamabad. Nizamabir I District. 2. The Diskict Collector, Nrzamabad. Nrzamabad District 3. The Director of School Education. State of Telangana I lyderabad' 4. State of Telangana, represented by rts Prrncipal Secr: ary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad ...PETITIONERS AND 1 K.Amber Singh, S/o. Sangya, aged about 38 years, Lr employee, R/o. 1-501- 6, Kotgir (Mandal), Nizamabad Distnct. B.Murali Mohan, S/o. Bal Singh. aged about 38 ye Lrs, Unemployee, Fl/o. Magdumpur, Golipoor P0, Kamareddy 503 187, Kamar rddy District 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn th: crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. the High c I irt may be pleased to ...RESPONDENTS vacate the interim order granted on 22.10.2017 in WPMP.No.39952 of 2017 in WP.No.32083 of 2017 in the interest of iustice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: AGP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: ORDER : I t THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BTI:] :EMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.32O83 of 2<t .7 ORDER: The petitioners belong to the ST comrr unity and hold qualifications including M.A., B.Ed., and B.a. (Telugu) as a single subject from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open IJ riversity (2003). They applied for the post of Language pandit Telugu) in DSC 2006 and secured good rankings, but their ap rointments were withheld on the ground that their single-subje: degree was not considered equivalent. Despite multiple repres:ntations and a report by an expert committee (20O9) rec,r nmending their eligibility, the respondents have not appoinrr I them. Similar cases have been decided in favor of single-subj():t degree holders by the Tribunal, High Court, and Supreme CcL rt, afl-rrming the equivalence of degrees from Dr. B.R. Ambcdkerr )pen Universit5r. Therefore, they seek a writ of manclamu,; directing their appointment as Language pandits (Telugu) ba:;, d on their merit in DSC 2OO6 with all consequential benct.its.

2. Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learrt cl counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Cove rrt rrr :nt pieader for Services-I for respondents. perused thc rccord 2 li8K,J w.P. l.o.3zGl of 2017

3. Learned counsel for respondents filed counter affrdavit stating tl.at petitioners' claim for appointment as Language Pandits (Telugu) based on their single-subject B.A' (Telugu) from Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Open University is untenable. The DSC 2006 notification and Government orders explicitly excluded single- subject certificate holders. The petitioners' earlier similar claim in O.A.No.7896 of 2OO7 was dismissed, and no appeal was filed' Their claim is also barred by delay since the recruitment concluded long ago and vacancies have been frlled in subsequent recmitments. The statutory rules require qualilications the petitioners do not mcet, as uphetd by the High Court' Government-appointed expert committees have also excluded single-subject holders. Intcrim relief granted earlier was conditional and is nou'sought to be vacated' Therefore, this Writ petition is not maintainable and is liabte to be dismissed'

4. lcarned counsel for pctitioners filed reply affidavit stating that the dismissal of O.A.No.7896 of 2OO7 was premature since the expert committee's report on the equivalence of single- subject degrees was pending. They meet the expert committee's recommended qualifications and qualify for appointment as la{guug. Pandit (Telugu). Citing tribunal, High Court, and 3 ?{BU W.P. No.32083 of 2017 Supreme Court decisions affirming the equi v rlence of such degrees, petitioners claims rejecting their Lppointment is arbitrary and discriminatory, violating cons .r ,utional rights. They seek appointment based on their merit anrl ranking in DSC 20O6 and request the court to recognize their er.t itlernent

5. Considering the submissions made by lr rth the learned I counsel and a perusal of the records, it s evident that petitioners seek appointment as Language I andits (Telugu) based on their single-subject B.A. (Telugu) de;;r ce lrom Dr.B.R. Ambedkar Open University and their merir rn DSC 2006. However, the DSC 2O06 notification and rele., rnt Government orders explicitly excluded single-subject deg:-, c holders from eligrbility. The petitioners' ea-rlier claim vvas I smissed by the Administrative Tribunal and was not appealt r , rendering the issue res judicata. It may be noted that the rer. tritment process concluded long ago, and subsequent recruitr-ne -.s hzrve filled the vacancies. The statutory rules prescribe quali[r: rtions which the petitioners do not fulfill, as supported br' : <pert committee reports. Therefore, this Court finds no merit rr :his case, as the claim is barred by delay and the exprL-:r terms of the recruitment notifications. 4 NSl(J W.P. No.320E3 of 2017

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY/i SD/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. One CC to SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-I, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies o BSR BS HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 { ORDER WP.No.32083 of 2017 .', i'. v [:I : ..\ ',-:.)\. $'irM iii !l DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \