1. G. SUBASH v. The State of Telangana

Counsel for the petitioners : SRI C RAJA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES - I The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK WRIT PETITION {TRl No.573L AF 2U^L7 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of Cor-rstitution of India, is filed seeking the tollorving relief: -'...t? d?l!rc tlle ntpugned procceclings itt t?c.No.6441/ 82/ (84)/ 2OOg_1. dttte-d 15.O9.2012 of Lhe 4tt, responcleut bg relecttng tlte case of the opPlicqnts for appoittment to the post of Secoiclary Grcjc j".-achers irr DSC_ 2-OO8, though, the applicants are fultg eligible andintittecl to hclcl the post of Secottdary Arade Teachers as per their Dducolional eltalifcoiions as LUas considered in the Ittemo No.67Z/ Trg.3/ 2o04- 1, clalecl il.Oi.zCloc of ttte then State of Andhra Praclesh and also seueral cutdidates u)ere perniued itl tlle selections and appointments frorn DSC-1999 ontuarcls, euen tircn, the respondenls uere rejected lhe clauns of the applicants for selcction cLnd appoi\tnrcnt iL DSC-20O8 m Medak District thc ctctton of the respon(1ents is hig.hlg illegal, arbitrarg, unreasonable, cliscrininatoty o,id otro iri uiolatiol of pitrciples of natural justice and deciare lhe same as bcLcl irt tcltu and set aside the same cirtd consequenllA clirect the respotl.lcnts to consrder the case.of the applrcants for appointment Jbr the post of Seconclaty Grade Teeclters as per their selections h DSC-2OO\ h i.,ledqk- Distict ..nd uill au conseque ntial benellts ctnd pass..."

2. The case of thc petitioncrs is that they studied Intermediate, and thereafter, completed thcir trvo ycars, course of TTC from Karnataka, which is altegedly equivalcrlt to the TTC course in the erstwhile State of Andhra pradesh. As such, in pursuance oi the DSC-20O8 Notification, the pcLitioners applied lor the post of Secondary Grade Teschcr in Mcdak District, participated in the recruitment prccess, appeared in the rvrittcn cxamirtation, anC 2 PK, J W P.(TR).tto 573 1 of 201 7 secured 30.5 anci 25.0 rnarks rcspectively. Howcvcr, they rr,,ere not considcrccl for appointrnerrt. 'lherefore, lhc petitioncrs filcd O.A. No. 19:l o[ 2009 beforc the erstwhile Andhra pradesh Administrativc 'I'ribunal (for short, ,thc Tribunal,), rvhich was disposed o[ vrdc ordcr datcd 04.08.201O, directing the respondcnts to considcr thcir casc for appointmcnt as Sccon<.lary Gradc Tcachcrs, if they arc ot hcrvrisc eligible. Subscquently, in vierv of non compliance of thc sairl ordcr-. thc pctirioncrs filcd C.A.No. 1 161 of 2012, u,hich rvas closcd vicle ordcr datcd 07 .O7.20 i4, rccording the stalement of Lhc lcsporrrlcnts that a speaking order datcd lS.Og.2O12 harl already l;cerr ltasscd. r-ejcctir-rg the claim of the pctitioners. Assailing the sanrc. lhe prcsicnt rvrit pctition (TR) was filcd.

3. Hcalcl Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, Iearncd counsel appearing for the pctitionr:r-s, :rnd Iearncd Govcrnment plcader for Scrvices_1, appcarir-rg on beh:rlf o[ thc rcspondcnts.

4. l-earnccl counscl for the petilioners contcnds that respondent No.3 has 1r:rssed thc prescnt impugned order dated lS.Og.2Ol2, rejccting thc claim of thc petitioners lor appoinlment to thc post of Scr:onclary Grade'leacher, \\,ithout proper application of mind, as the verv s:lm(' qualifir;ation and certificates of the petitioners now questtonccl r,,,.cre acccpted by thc rcspondents duri^g the recruitment 3 PK, J W.P.(TR) No s731 oI2017 under DSC-1994 onwards. As such, the impugned reaction order is rvholly illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that one candidate, Ms. N. Aruna, who appeared in DSC-200 I with similar qlralification as that of the petitioners, was considered and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher vide proceedings dated 17 .Ol .2OO2. It is further submitted that the certihcates issued by Government of Karnataka were duly recognized by the erstwhilc State of Andhra pradesh vide Memo.No.677lTrg.3 /2OO4-t dared 1 1.O2.2OO4, and all the qualified candidates possessing the said certilicate r.vere considercd for appointment until DSC-2006. It is furthcr contcndcd tl-rat the basis lor appointment of sevcral candidates in pursuance ol DSCs_20O0 ald 2OO 1 was also the very same qualification, which was never objected by the Government at any point of tinre, until DSC_200g, wherein, the petitioners, who acquired thc saicl qualification in the year 1990 itself, u,ere denied appointment on the sole ground that their certihcates issued by the State of Karnataka were not equivalent. 'fherefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays this Court to allow the present writ petition (TR) by setting aside the impugned rejection orders dated lS.O9.2Ol2, and consequently, to dircct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers in pursuance ol DSC-2008. 4 PK,.t W.P.(TR/No.57s I of 2o17

5. On the othcr hand, lc:rrncd Government pleader appearing on behall of thc rcspondeltts, submits that the petitioners have earlier appro:rched tl-rc Trilrunal ancl filed O.A.No.194 of 2OO9, seeking a direction to tltc rcsllondents [o entertain their applications for the post of Secondary Gradc Teacher in pursuancc of DSC_20Og. Therealter, i, pursu:,-rcc of the interim directions therein, the petitior-rcrs' altplicatior-rs rvere accepted and they u,ere pcrmitted to parlicipatc in tltc sclection process, and thc said O.A. was latcr disposcd o[ orr 04.08.2010, dirccting the respondents to consider their casc frrr appoirrtmcnt as Sccondary Grade Teachers, if they are othcnvisc cligiitlc. In compliance of thc same, the case of the petitioncrs rvars corrsidcrcd for appointmenL to thc post of Secondary Gradc 'lcacl.rcr ancl tl.rc: present impugncd order dated LS.Og.2Ol2 has bccn pirsscd, rc-tecting thcir claim, as they have not acquired the requisitc arc:tdc.ric anrl profcssional qualification as prescribed in the Recruitnrcn{ Rtrlcs irr (i.O.Ms.No. 161 dated 06.\2.2OOA.

6. examination, the It is lurrltcr strbmitted that after careful Govcrr-rmcnt, in its Mcmo No.67T /Trg.3/2OO4_l dated 1 1.O2.2OO4, issucd a clarification on the ccrtirrcated obtained from the State ot Karnataka. anrl orclercd to cxtcnd the benefit of eligibility to the applicants Possessing thc'lrc obtained from the Statc of Karnataka 5 W.P.(TR). No. s73 1 of 20 I 7 prior to 3 1 . 10. 1994 ald who have passed TCH with t$,o years lntermediate of Karnataka State beyond 3I.10. 1994 o[ elementary stage, to appear in the DSC, subject to the condi[ion that the candidates should obtain Teacher Education Certihcate at the elementary level lrom the institutions recognized by the NCTE, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that the instant O.A. was filed before the Tribunal after a lapse of four years o[ passing the impugncd rejection order, without assigning any valid reasons. It is further submitted lhat the contention of the petitioners that one Ms. M. Aruna, who possesses the very same qua-lilication as thaL of the petitioners, was appointed is irrelevant, as the said recruitment was governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 1 dated 16.07.1994, rvhereas, the recruitment under DSC-2008 is governed by the rules issucd in G.O.Ms.No. 161 dated 06.12.2OOA. Therefore, the respondents are justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 15.09.2012. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7 . This Court has taken note of the rival contentions/ submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties.

8. Admittedly, after their IntermeCiate, the petirioners pursued the two years' course of TTC from Karnataka during 199O, and have 6 PK, J W.P.(1R).No 5731 of 2A 17 applied for thr: posr of Seconclary Grade Teacher in pursuance of the DSC-2008 Rccruitmcnt Notification. Howcver, since their applications $'erc not considcrcd, the petitioners hled O.A.No.l94 of 2O09 before the Tribunal, and in pursuancc of the interim orders granted tlterein, lheir applications n ere considered and they were permitted to partioipatc in the recruitment process. Subsequently, the Tribunal <iisposcd of thc O.A. vide order dated 14.Og.2010, with thc follou'ing clircction: "3. Sincc thc prcsent C)A., is also lor the same relief, this O.A., rs alscr disposcd ol with the same dircctions, holding that the cascs of the applicants are to be considered for the posts 0f S.G.Ts., pursuant ro DSC 2008 Notification, if they arc otltcrwisc cligiblc arrd qualihed to hold that posts and funhcr obscrr.ing tltat, it the Certificates possessed by the applic:rnts fuom Iiar'ltataka State valid Certihcates, which can be lrcatecl as i:c1ual to the Certificates issued by the Education Dcpartmelll of our State. No order as to costs.,,

9. ln compliancc ri'ith the aloresaid order, thc respondents have considcrecl the candid:rture ol the petitioners herein and rejected their claim vide impugned ordcrs dated 15.O9.2O 12, on the sole ground th.rt the pctitioncrs have not acquired the requisite academic and professional qualifications to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as prescribcd in Rule-4 cf G.O.Ms.No. 161 dated 06.l2.2OOa. The said Rule is cxtractcd hereunder: 7 PK, J w. P_(TRI.No. 573 I of 20 17 "(u) Secondarv Grade Teacher :- Must possess intermediate certihcate isstred by the Board of lntermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh and D.lld certificatc issucd by the Director of Govcrnment Dxamrnations, Andhra Pradesh. OR Must possess a Bachelor Degree and a B.Ed. ( Subject to outcomc of revierv petition hled in WP MP No.3O3O/2008 in Wp No.l2aoo/2oo7 & Batch in the Itigh court of Ap and SLp No.27031/2008 filed in the Supreme Court of India." i 0. The main contention of the petitioner is that in earlier rccruitments, i.e., DSC-20O0 and 2001, the respondcnts have considered the candidature of such othcr candidatcs who possessed the very same qualification as that of the petitioncrs. Rcliance has been placed upon the Government Memo.No.677 /'lrg.3l2OO4-l dated ll.O2.2OO4, wherein, the Government had accorded permission to the candidates possessing T.T.C. from Karnataker State. to appear in the DSC recruitments. The relevant portion of the said Memo reads as under: "The Commissioner and Director of Scl-rool Education, Hyderabad has stated in his letter that Government have issued ordcrs extending the benefit of prospcctivc T.T.C., holders of Karnataka statc and also the cquivalence of Karnataka. T.T.C., to that of T.T.C., of Andhra Pradcsh to the applicants who possess Karnataka T.T.C., obtained prior to 31-10-1994 and they are eligible to appear only for D.S.C., 1999. Further he has stated that vide referencc 2nd cited Governraent have extended the bencfit of eligibility to the applicants who possess Karnataka 'l'.T.C., prior to 31- ).O 1994 to appear for DSC 2OOO. Subsequently, Govcrnment have extended the said bencht to the 8 PK, J WP.(rR).No.s7:t t of 2017 candidates al)pr arcd lor D.S.C. 2OO 1 and 2002 also in the refcrenccs 3rcl rrr.rcl -1th. He further statcd that certaln candiclatcs r.,, hr) arc appcaring tor D.S.C. 2OO3 have represcntcd lhr: Cornmissioncr and Dircctor of Schoot Education to cxtcnd thc ordcrs issued vide Govt. Memo 4th cited so as to cnablc rhcm to appcar for D.S.C. 2003. He has rcqucstcri rhe Govcrnment to exarnine ttre issue and pass suitable orclers cxtending the benetit of eligibility to the appliczrnts to appcar to DSC 2O03 who posses-s Ka ataka TTC obtainccl prior to 31,10-1994 and arlso who passed T.C.FI. with 2 1.cars intermcdiatc of Kamataka State bcyond 31 101994 of elcrncrltar-\, stage inciuding Urdu Candidates, subject r() concLtion that thc candidales should obtarn Teacl]cr Educ:rtior.r Ccr[illcatc at the elemcntaqr level from thc institutiorls rccogrrizcd by NCTE, Banglore. 2. Thc Go\.crnmcr]t h:rr,c cxamincd the m.rttcr arld hercb5 or-der cxtcn(ling rhc bcncfit of cligibility to thc applic,urts to appcar to I)SC l ho posscss Kainatai<a T.T.C. obtaincd prior Lo 31.10.1994 and also rvho passcd T.C.ll., lvith 2 ]'cars Intcrmcdiatc of Karnataka State bcyond 31-10.19911 of rlcmcntary stage including Urdu candidltes, subjecL to conditior.r that the candid;tc should obtain Teachcr Educ;rrion Ccrtificatc at the elemcntaqr level from lhc rnstitutions rccognizcd by NCTE, Banglore."

11. Irrom a ltare rcaclirrg of tl,rc aforcs:rid Mcmo, it is clear that the Government had originalll. pcrmittcd thc candidates posscssing lhe profcssional qualification obtainccl from the state of I(arnataka prior to 31. 10. 1994, to appcar in the DSC recruitment during ths ysap 1999. Thcrczrftcr, trre saici bc,efit herd been extcnded periodically to the subsequcnt recrrritments, i.c., DSC-200O, 2OO1 ald 20O2. The orders in thc aforcserrd Mcmo rvcrc passed in respect of the recruitment undcr th e DSC 2003 rccruitment. Hcre, it is relevant to note that thc Governmcnt has not cxtendcd the said benefit to the 9 PK, J W.P.(TR/No. 573 I of 20l 7 subsequcn t recruitments. It is always the decision of the Govcrnment whether to extend the benefit award in the aforesaid Memo to the subsequent recruitments or not. I{owevcr, as stated supra, the benehts of the Memo cnded in the year 20O3, which were only for the candidates who appeared in the recruitment process till DSC-20O3. As such, the pelitioners, who participated in the DSC- 2008 recruitment, cannot takc shelter of the said Memo in the year 2008, unless it had been extended by the Government for future recruitments

12. The petitioners also contcnded that one Ms. M. Aruna, who possesscs the very same qualihcation as that of thc petitioncrs, was appointed. The respondents categorically addressed this point, stating that the recruitment of the said candidate was governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.22 I dated 16-07.1994. I-Iowever, thc recruitment under DSC-2008, is governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.,161 Cated 06.12.2008. Therefore, this Court is of the vielv that the petitioners cannot seek any relief, without thcre being a challenge to the said rules. As such, in that vierv cf the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere r,r'ith the impugned order dated t5.o2.2012. 10 PK, J W.P.A'R).No.573 ) of 2017

13. Furthcr, it is suffice to say, even though thc petitioners are found to bc eligible lirr appointmcnt, rhe prcscnt petition .ri,as hled in the ycar 2016, a\ r., hich point of time, they wcrc aged about (47) years. Considering t.l-rc samc, thcy,,voul<i be aged about (56) years as of today. Flence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the pctitioners on this ground as rvcll.

14. In thr' light of the above maclc cliscr-rssion, this Court finds no merit in thc prcscnL writ pctition, and Lhercforc, it is liable to be dismisscd.

15. Accordingly, tl-rc Writ pctition (Tlt) is dismisse d. Misccllancous petitions, il any, pencling in this Writ petition, shall stands closed SD/- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 One CC to SRI C RAJA SEKHAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. fwo CCs to GP FOR SERVICES - l, High Court for the State of Telangana Iour]

3. Two CD Copies .-rf PVL TKS HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ORDER WP(TR).No.5731 of 2017 THE S -\ ( T o $ ;..r t.:j 2 3 t{t,t ; \\*\'i !t .1- . .,.^.- ,, .'. DrsMrsstNG THE WRIT PET|T|ON (TR) WITHOUT COSTS .a ^., ( {r:t [.Ei' ': \ '::4f ,rl / ? ).'; \\