Manikya Haritha Velpular, D/o v. Robinsonm Aged about

23. B. Srihari, S/ o. B. Ramaswamy Aged about 42 yeals, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Chemistry) R/o. TGMS - Gundumal Village, Kosgi Mandal Narayanpet District.

24.Mohd. Khaleel Ahmed, S/o. Mohd. lqbal Ahmed Aged about 49 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Civics) Fl/o. TGMS - Nidamanoor Village and [Vlandal Nalgonda District.

25. Gorla Srilekha, D/o. Buchaiah Aged about 36 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Telugu) R/o. TGMS - Bommalaramaram Mandal, Yadadri - Bhongir District

26.Nikhath Fareen, D/o. Mohd. Abdul Mubeen Aged about 43 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) R/o. TGMS - Bazarhatnoor Village and Mandal Adilabad District.

27.M. Raghanandan, S/o. M. Srinivasulu Aged about 43 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Maths) R/o. TGIVIS - Peddapuram Village, Nampally Mandal Nalgonda District.

28.Nagula Ganesh, s/o Sathaiah Aged about 38 years, Occ. Post Graduale Teacher (Telugu) R/o. TGMS - Athamkur Village and Mandal Suryapet. District

29. B. Karunakar, S/o. Somaiah Aged about. 43 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Maths) F/o. TGMS - Athamkur Village and Mandal Suryapet District 30. Chiluka Ravi, S/o Venkaiah Aged about 48 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Civics) R/o. TGMS - Pasnoor Village and Mandal Suryapet District 31.Ganne Rajendra Kumar, S/ op. Somaiah Aged about 47 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) R/o. TGMS Kanagal Village, Nalgonda Mandal Nalgonda District

32.L. Srikanth, S/o. L. Narsaiah Aged about 42 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Maths) R/o. TGMS - lmampet Village, Suryapet Mandal Suryapet District

33.Katamalla Soma Sunder, S/o. John Aged about 44 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Telugu) Fl/o. TGMS Pasnnor Village, Suryapet Mandal Suryapet District

34.Banoth Dasharatha, Sio. Swamy Aged about 46 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Maths) F/o. TGMS - Gundala Village, Bhongir Mandal Yadadri - Bhongir District

35. Tirunagari Srikanth, S/o. Ramulu Aged about 45 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Maths) R/o. TGMS - Balkonda Village and Mandal Nizamabld District

36. Barigela Anantharamulu, S/o. Venkataiah Aged about 40 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Telugu) R/o. TGMS - Gurrampode Village and Mandal Nalgonda District

37. Manikya Haritha Velpular, D/o. V. Robinsonm Aged about 45 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (English) Rl/o. TGMS - Jagadevpur Village and Mandal Siddipet District

38. Guduru Rukmini, D/o. Seetharama Rao Aged about 48 years, Occ. post Graduate Teacher (English) R/ o. TGMS - Atmakur Villbge and Mandal Suryapet District

39. Ramagiri Yadaiah, S/o. Lingaiah Aged about 47 yearc, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Telugu) R/o. TGMS - Kanagal Village and Mandal Nalgonda District. 40.S. Padmaja, S/o. S. Dasaradha.Aged about 46 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (English) R/o. TGMS - Kondapak Village and Mandal Siddipet District 41.Polkam Krishna, S/o. Pedda Gangahar Aged about 48 years, Occ. post Graduate Teacher (English) F/o. TGMS Nandipet Villdge and Mandal Nizamabad District.

42.B. Sukanya, D/o. B. Gangar3m Aged about 43 years, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Zoology) R/o. TGMS - Jakaranpally Village and Mandal Nizamabad District

43.G. Manguth, S/o. Laxman Aged about 44 yearc, Occ. Post Graduate Teacher (Economics) Fl/o. TGMS - Jharasangam Village and Mandal Sanga Reddy District ...PETTTTONER(S) AND

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary Education Department, Secretariat Amaravathr Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to Govt. Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

3. The Commissioner and Director of School Education Ex-officio Project Director, RMSA, Vijaywada Andhra Pradesh

4. The Commissioner and Director of School Education Ex-officio Project Director, RMSA, Hyderabad Telangana

5. The Secretary (earlier known as Additional Director) Model Schools, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh

6. The Additional Director, Model Schools,Hyderabad,Telangana ...RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in not assigning the notional seniority to the petitioners on par with the first phase candidates w.e.f 14.06.2013, thereby depriving the petitioners for the benefits of revised pay scales of 20'15 and 202O al par with first phase candidates pursuant to Notification No. 01/RMSA/Model Schools12012 dated 06.02.2012 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the provisions of Rule 33(b) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 and violation of Article 14, 16,21 and 300-4 of Constitution of lndia besides being contrary to the Judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9103 and.9104 of 2013 dated16.03.2018 and Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in WP Nos. 36093 and 3501 1 of 2022 dated 17 .11 .2022 and consequently hold that the petitioners are entitled to assign notional security on par with the first phase candidates w.e.f 14.06.2013 in accordance with Rule 33(b) and 36(i) of the Telangana State Subordinate Rules, 1996 as observed and directed by this Hon'ble Court in WP Nos. 36093 and 35011 of 2022 dated 17.11.2022 in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9'103 and 9104 ol 2013 dated 16.03.2018 pursuant to the Notification No. 01/RMSfuModel Schools/2012, dated 06.02.2012.and to extend the benefits of Revised Pay Scales 2O15 and 2O20 at par with first phase candidates with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary and increments thereof. a i i : ! 1 |.A.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 preased to direct the 'respondents to forthwith extend the benefits of Revised pay scales of 2015 and 2020 by dury assigning the notionar seniority to the petitioners on par with the first phase candidate pursuant to the Notification No. 0liRMSA/Model schoors/2o12, dated 06.02.2012 as per th6 judgments of the Hon'bre Apex court in c.A No. 9103 and 9'r04 of 20i3 dated 16.03.2018 and judgment of the Hon,bre court in wP No.36266 of 20163 dated 16.04.2018 and wp.No.36093 and 35011 ot 2022 dated 17.1'1 .2022, pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRt S.SANTOSH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A.PHANI BHUSHAN p9y19el!or the Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 5 : SRt B.RAJESHWAR REDDY, LEARNED G.P FOR THE STATE ANDHRA PRADESH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2, 4 & 6 : SRI SANTHAPUR SAWANARAYANA, LEARNED G.P FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following ORDER r-I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICENARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRIT PETITION No.1234O oF 2025 ORDER: @e. tloA'bte Sn Justlce P'sont Koshlt) Heard Mr.A.Phani Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners' Mr. Santhapur Satyanarayana' learned Government Pleader for Services-l appearing for respondent Nos'2' 4' 6 and Mr' B' Rajeshwar Reddy, learned Government Pleader for the State Andhra Pradesh' appearing for respondent Nos' l, 3..& 5 Perused the material available on record' The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the following 2 relief: "to issue Writ, Order, or direction more particularlg one in the nature of Writ of Mandamtts d'eclaing the ctction of the respondents in not assigning the notionol senioity to the petitioners on Par t'ith the first phase cand'idates u'e'f 14 06 2013' therebA depriuing the petitioners for the beneftts oJ reuised pay scales of 2015 and 2O2O at par Luith rtrst phase candidates pursuant to Notirtcafion No'01/ RMSA/ Model Schools/ 2012, r)ated'06-02-2o12 as arbitrary' illegol' unjust, controry to the prouisions of Rule 33(b) of the I'elangana State and- Subordinate Seruice Rules'1996 and uiolation of Article 14, 16, 21 ond 3OO-A of the Constitution of India besides being contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in in Ciuil Appeal No. 9103 and 91O4 of 2013' dated 16-03-2018 and Judgment of this Hon'bte Court in W P'Nos 36O93 ond 35011 of 2o22dated17-112022and'consequenttyhotdthatthepetitioners are entitled. to assign the notional senioity on par tuith the rtrst phase cand.idates u.e.f.14-06-2013 in accordance Luith Rule 33(b) / t/ and 36 (i) of the Telangana State and Subordinate Seruice Rules,1996 as obserued and directed by this Hon'ble Court tn W-P.Nos.36O93 and 35O11 of 2O22 dated 17-l1-2022 and W.P.No.4873 of 2O25 dated O2-04-2O25in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in in Ctuil Appeal No. 9103 and 91O4 of 2013, dated 16-03-2018 pursuant to the Notifcation No.Ol/RMSA/Model Schools/2012, dated.O6-O2-2o 12 and to extend the benefits of Reuised Pay Scales 2015 and 2O2O at par u.tith first phase candtdates with atl cons'equential benefts including the arrears of salary and increments thereof and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'bl6 Court mag deem fit and proper".

3. The grievance of the petitioners in a nutshell is that pursuant to an order passed by the,. Division Bench of this High Court in W.P.Nos.36093 & 35011 of 2022, decided on 17.11.2022, the respondents were specifically directed to draw a combine merit list of direct recruits of 2O12 by interspersing Telugu Medium and English Medium Post Graduate teachers and then determine inter se seniority of direct recruits based on the merit secured by each of the candidates without regards to the date of joining and the roster point of reservation

4. Admittedly, the aforesaid judgment of this High Court dated

17.11.2022 by efflux of time has attained finality. The Government of Telangana also has principally accepted the said judgment to be binding upon the department so far as the implementation of the instructions/ directions given in the said judgment is concerned. \')

5. ln the process, as a consequence of the disposal of those two writ petitions, the respondents were required to publish a fresh seniority list consisting of candidates belonging to the two mediums and inter se seniority was required to be provided in terms of the merit secured by each of the candidates in the selection process

6. Down the line, the grievance of the petitioners as on date is that the seniority list that the respondent/ State of Telangana has now prepared wouid provide the seniority to the petitioners in accordance with the orders passed in the aforesaid two writ petitions

7. However, for the reason that the persons who had given joining on earlier period i.e., the lirst batch having joined on 14.06.2013 were drawing more salaqr than the petitioners herein, even though the seniority has been rectified and the petitioners were granted seniority at par with the hrst batch of candidates

8. It is this disparity in the pay between the two set of candidates who were granted seniority from the same date of joining of the first batch i.e., 14.06.2013 which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.

9. The two Governments i.e., the State of Andhra Pradesh as also the State of Telangana have filed their respective counters. The State of Andhra Pradesh has washed their hand off in their counter stating that the granting of seniority and the pay in the instant case ts exciusivelY within the domain of the State of Telangana as all the petitioners are working in the State of Telangana and therefore' there is no liability or responsibility as such casted upon the State of Andhra Pradesh'

10. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Telangana fairly conceded that they are bound by the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in W'P'Nos'36093 & 35Oll of 2022 which stands decided on ,.17 ' 1 | '2022 ' He further contends that in terms of the directions,in the said judgment of the Division Bench of this High Court as also in term of Rule 33(B) of the State Sub-Ordinate Service Rules 1996, the inter se senioritY between the two set of and the Petitioners have also been candidates have been rectified granted seniority at par with the first batch of candidates who were given joining on 14'O6'2013' Thus the order of Division Bench of this Court stands fullY honoured' I 1. So far as disparity in the salary among the two set of candidates are concerned, the Iearned Government Pleader appearing for the state of relangana submits that the disparity that has arisen because of the fact that the employees/ officers who were appointed and given joining on 14.06.2O13 and the fact that they had come in the State cadre earlier to the petitioners they were getting higher salary as compared to the petitioners whose date of joining was much sub sequent.

12. Learned Government Pleader further submits that for the reason so far as the date of joining of the petitioners herein being of a subsequent period, the salary was bound to be lesser than the people who were appointed in the earlier period of time. Thus, the Government has ensured that the inter se seniority is provided strictly in accordance with the directiorfs given by the Division Bench of this High Court in the aforesaid two writ petitions decided on 17.11.2022.

13. Given the a-foresaid factual matrix of the case, all that we need to consider at this juncture is whether in the given factual circumstances, the petitioners in the present writ petition would be entitle for parity of pay at par with the candidates who have granted joining with effect frorn 14.06.20 l3 or not.

14. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the operative part of the order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid two writ petitions which stood disposed of on 17.ll.2022:

23. Further, the assertion of the respondent authorities on scope of General Rule 33 shows their poor understanding of the Rules. General Rule 33 mandates determination of inter se seniority of direct recruits + 1 based on merit secured in the recruitment examination and not based on date of joining. Further, proviso to General Rule 33 (b) requires assigning notional dates of commencement of probation to candidates joined later based on order of merit. Rule 36 (i) is more emphatic on this aspect. Thus, on a combined reading of General Rules 33 (b) and 36 (i), it is very clear that seniority of direct recruits has to be determined based on merit secured in the recruitment examination irrespective of date of joining and wherever necessa{/ to assign notional dates of commencement of probation. 24 . Before determining seniority of Post Graduate teachers the elemeitar5r requirement is to draw a combined merit list of candidates belonging to Telugu Medium and English Medium streams selected in pursuant to recruitment notihcation dated 06.O2.2012. This exercise is yet to be undertaken, even though long ago Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to determine common merit of all candidates irrespective of their medium of study. There cannot be a seniority list of direct recruits without a merit list. 25. One other aspect need to be noticed is that the selections were made before division of combined State of A.P. Therefore, the authorities ought to have drawn combined merit list of all candidates appointed in both States pursu ant to 2Ol2 selections. No such combined list is drawn so far. Alternatively, the employer in Telangana State ought to have drawn the names of candidates appointed in Telangana State by interspersing Telugu Medium and English Medium candidates according to their merit and then proceed to determine inter se seniority of Post Graduate Teachers recruited in pursuant to 2012 recruitment' 26. Thus, the provisional seniority list impugned herein is vitiated on several counts, ex-facie illegal, contrary to statutory mandate, principles of law d'nd directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It. amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. It deserves to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The respondent-employer is directed to draw combined merit list of direct recruits of 2Ol2 by interspersing felugu medium and English medium Post Graduate Teachers and then to determine inter se seniority of direct recruits based on the merit secured by them, without regard to date of joining and roster Points for reservation. 27. Tine Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed. I 5. The plain perusal and observing the directions given by the Division Bench in the aforesaid paragraphs makes it amply clear that the Division Bench of this High court had struck down the provisional seniority list that was earlier prepared by the department and had directed the state Government to prepare a combine merit list and thereafter to provide seniority to each of the candidates in accordance with their respective merits position' Page 8 of 1O '--l \ \

16. Further, \,hat is also reflected from the order of the Division - ! Bench is that apart from directing the State Government for preparation of ner,', combined merit list and seniority list, it was also directed that the seniority has to be prepared ignoring the date of joining of the candidates which in other words means that all the candidates u,ould have to be granted seniority strictly in accordance with their merit position irrespective of the date of joining. 17 . Thus, the candidates who were given joining on 14.06.20l3 and the candidates who have given their joining on subsequent period all would have to be granted seniority with effect from 74 .06.20 13 and their seniorit-y list inter se has to be prepared in accordance with their merit position in the list

18. In the course of fixing the seniority for the petitioners as well frorn 14.06.20 13 rvhich has been accepted by the State of Telangana, we do not find any good reason as to why even thereafter any disparity of pay bet',r,'een the two set of candidates who have been granted appointment/ seniority from the same date should remain. This in other words also lead to a situation where though the order of the Division Bench in the two writ petitions decided on 17 .11.2022 would stand complied with but the beneficiary i.e., the candidates who had given joining on subsequent period would not be able to reap the fruits from the said senioritY list so prepared by the respondents' Their grtevance in other way still remains though their writ petition earlier stood allorved

19. [n the gtven factual circumstances we are inclined to allow the writ Petition so far as protecting the petitioners to the extent of granting pay parity with notional seniority to them at par with their counter parts who have been granted joining with effect from 14.06.20 13 onwards However, we make it clear that the benefits that shall be given to the petitioners \grein would only be notional fixation from 14.O6.20 13 till Ol'O7 '2025 and henceforth from Ol'O7 '2025 onwards the petitioners would be entitle for the benefits of the salary at par with the candidates who were given appointment and joined with etfect from 14'06'2013 onwards'

20. With the aforesaid directions, ailowed. No order as to costs the instant writ Petrtton stands As a sequel, miscellaneous aPPlicattons pending if anY, shall stand closed /TTRUE COPY// 335*IilalBtiiR SECTION OFFICER To Special Secretariat, Department, Secretariat Amaravathi Guntur Dist ric Andh

1. The PrinciPal Secretary, Govern ment of Andhra rnment, Edu Chief Secretary 2. fhe erabad te of Telanga Sta 3. The Commissioner and Di Director of 4. Th€ Com A, Viiayw Director' RMS Director' RUSn, nYO erabad Telangana' to Gove na at HYd or of Schoo a Andh ra Pradesh. School Ed missioner a lEd ucation Ex-officio Proiect ucation Ex-officio Proiect desh, Education ra Pradesh cation DePartment,

5. The Secretary (earlier known as Additional Director) Model Schools, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-

6. The Additional Director, Model Schools, Hyderabad, Telangana. 7. Two CC's to G.P FOR SERVICES - l, High Court for the State of Telangana 8. One CC to SRI A.PHANI BHUSHAN, Advocate [OPUC] 9. One CC to SRI B RAJESHWAR REDDY (G:P. FOR STATE OF ANDHRA at Hyderabad. (OUT) PRADESH) Advocate [OPUC]

10.Two CD Copies SA \ W I \ I I I '-=--=:_\.- -6.€. tni ,-*14 ,'\... -^ .\ 1 1 iljr 2025 f 5 .\' * )4'I'CHF-o i: * HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 I I ORDER WP.No.12340 of 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \\