The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondens: AGPftPRESENTING ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER HON,BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ONN o.22L82 0F 2022 ORDER: Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents on record,

2.7 he etitio ner DDTOA che the Court seekino draver as under: "...to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the petltioner is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) under BC-E Category in the united Mahabubnagar District in the existing available vacancies pursuant to Notification No. 1/RMSA/Model Schoots/ 2012, dated 6/212012 by duly extending.the fruits of the ludgment of this Honorable Court dated IZ/09/20t6 passed in W.P.No.21927 of 2075 as confirmed in W.A.No. 289 of 2Ol7 and batch, dated L7/Il/2021. with alt consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not considering the just claims of the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of fGT (Telugu) in spite of availability of vacancies even 't 1 SN. J though his claim was deprived of for selectior and appointmsnt in view of preparing the selectio'l list imprcperly which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and subve'rsiv: of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and pass. . " It ls specific case of the petitioner that the 1st 3. respondenl. iss;ried notification for recruitment to the post oF Trained (iraduate Teachers and P.G.Ts vide nCtification No.01/RM5;A/Model Schools/20t2, dated 06.0:2.2012 and the petitioner was eligible for the above said posts ils per the eligibility criteria given In the notification. The petitioner applied for the por;t a rd participated in the selection process with Hall Ticket No.ti1440500573 and secured 54.57 marks, bul. the last selected candi,late in the Zone VI secured 54.63 rrarks which makes it evic€rnt and clear that the petitioner i:; l:he next meritoriou:; candidate for the selection. It is l'urtl'er the case oF the petitioner that the respondents had called the selected candidates in the 1:1 ratio but r ot in 1 :2 ratio for tre r:ertificate verification and during the v(trification process scme of the individuals candidature \/as c,en(:elled as they didn't meet the eligibility criteria as mentionel in the notification and some others candidature was cancr:lled for -) SN. J submitting the false certiFicates and also some oF the candidates didn't appear for verification as they were already in better government services. Further the case of.the petitioner is that the respondent didn't follow the judgment of this court in W.P.No.21306/2005 dated 04.09.2006, whereby court ordered the respondents therein to consider the next meritorious and eligible candidates to fill up vacancies given in the notification there under. The above said judgment was upheld by the Hon'ble supreme court in Special Leave(CC) No.916/2007 ,dated 0s.02.2007. It is further the case of the petitioner that the persons similarly situated have filed W.P.No.2197 of 2015 before this court and same was allowed by this court vide order, dated

12.09.2016 directing the respondents to redraw the provisional list and consider the case of the petitioners there under, subsequently writ appeal vide W.A.No.289 of 2017 and batch preferred by the respondents was dismissed vide orders dated

17.11.2027 by the division bench of this court upholding the order passed by the learned single bench. As the respondents were initiating steps to implement the above said order. the petitioner apprehended that his case might not be considered by l ;--- 4 SN,.J the respon(Jents as the petitioner was not a par1,y in thr,: above- mentioned writ petition and writ appeal, henc,: the F'etitioner preferred ttte p.65661 writ petition seeking this court to c irect the respondents tc consider the case of the petitioner all;o while redrawing the provisional Iist and preparing the selecticn list.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD. A. The relevant rtion of the iud o ment of the Division Bench ol' th is Court. dated 3 L.L2.2O2t Da sed in D o W.A.No.5li1 of 2O11 is extracted hereunder:- n dvertised a not ca the sam In thr: corsidered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, the vacancv is unfilled, as the person in whose en issued ha rw rd to the n o v ur a se lection. Th e next Derson in the waitin list sh ou d be aooointed aoainst the vacancv. However/ rn cases wher= appointment orders were issued,, perso'ls have joine,J and Ieft thereafter, then the particular Vacancies have to be carried forward to the next select.ion and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Singl(: Judge. Accordinglly, the writ appeal is dismissed. B. The interim orders. dated 2O.O2. 2O23 oassed bv this Court in t,A.No. O1 of 20222 in the Dresent Writ Petition is extracted hereu nder: - ) SN. J This petition is coming for instructions/cou n te r of the respondents from 06.06.2022 onwards, but respondents failed to file in structions/cou nters. In view of the same, there'shall be interim direction as prayed for. C. The counte affidavit filed on behalf of t e resDondents and in oarticular Dara N s.16 to L9 are extracted hereunder:-

16. It is submitted that, in Zone-VI, total 99 candidates were called for certificate veriFication for TGT Telugu basing on the merit as against the 99 vacancies notified. As per the Hon'ble High Court orders dated: L2.09.2076 this office has redrawn the selection list in Zone-VI and the case of the petitioner is examined and it has been found that, the petitioner is not coming under selection zone under BC-E (General) category. Total (3) posts were reserved for BC-E General category and (2) posts were filled under BC-E (General) category and (1) BC-E Women post is filled up with the eligible candidates as per merit. The marks of the selected candidates are ranging between 59.07 to 57.33 marks and marks of last selected candidate Shaik Althaf Hussain is 57.33 marks, whereas petitioner has secured 54.57 marks. Between the last selected candidate and the petitioner, there are three candldates in the merit list, who are more meritorious than the petitioner. L7. It is submitted that, the petitioner in para 3 of the affdvait compares himself with the candidate who is selected under BC-D reservation with 54.57 marks. The petitioner cannot compare himself with other reservation category candidates, as he belongs to BC-E Genera! Category. SI.No. Name of cand idate HT Number Marks Rank Remarks 6 Mohammad Abdul rabbani Mahammad Shahedha Be um C Mahtab Mohammed Mehamood 1 2 3 4 61640500300

55.97 tls1 61640500012

55.t7 !;27 SN. J Not Selected candidates and not petitioners 6L74050025L 61440500573 -+s4.63 586 - 54.57 I'92 Petitio ner n he eti n r. Hen

18. As shown in the above table. there are three other meritorious candidates who qot more marks comrno under selection zone. The claim of the of the Detitioner@oara8th at, he is next meritorious is falser and not true. 19. lt is submitted that, the respondent i.e, Director of School E:ducation and Ex-Officio State Proje,:t Director Mode:l Schools has redrawn the selection pursuant to the notification dated 06-02-2072 as per th,= order; of the Hon't>le lligh Court in W.P.No.6440 of 2015 & batch and W.A. \o.289 of 2077 & batch as per gu de:lines in G.O.lvls.No.25, Education (SE-Prog.I) Dept., dated: 04.04.2013 and thus the petitioner did not find place as per the facts stated supra. The petitioner is making false and base ess claim to mislead the Hon'ble Court. DTSCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:-

5. Learlred counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) in the existing available vacancy pursuant to notification No.l/RMSA/Model Schoots/2OL2, dated O6.02.2OL2 nl,ay 1 , 7 SN, J be considered as per directions of this Court, dated

20.O2.2O23 passed tn I.A.No.O1 ot 2022 in the present Writ Petition.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the candidate one C.Mahtab referred to at para No.17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents vacancy exists and therefore, petitioner's case for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Tetugu) should be considered under the said existing vacancy as per the Division Bench of this Court, dated 31.12.2O21 passed in W.A.No.Stl of 2OLL ,

7. Learned Assistant Government pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents placing retiance on the averments made in the counter affldavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos, 16 to 20 (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioner belongs to BC-E(General Category) and therefore, the petitioner cannot compare himself with other reservation category candidates and further, that there are three other meritorious candidates who got more marks than I i I I I .! 8 SN. J the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is next meritorious is disprrted even as per the averments made in the counter affidavit at para No.17' and therefore, the petitioner is not entiiled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present writ Petition. 8, Learned coun sel apo ea rino onbe half ofthep etitioner rected to consi der ointm nt .of post of th e existinq radu te Tea the case er or Tra i ne Tel u available of C.Mahta su ec h f () rwrse e iqibleasoerr u les. 9 lrUfn oearinq on behalf of submis sion madebv the lea rn ed counsel ao earinq on tsd s not dis te th d s IJ e Detitioner. 1O. Takino into considdration:_ a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learnerl counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner ancl learned o SN, J Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The Division Bench of this Court; dated 3L.LZ.2OZL passed in W.A.No.511 of 2011 (referred to and extracted above) d) The interim orders, dated 20.O2.2O23 passed by this Court in I.A.No. OL ol 2O222 in the present Writ Petition (referred to and extracted above) e) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) This Court opines that the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted in view of the specific averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) that the petitioner is not coming under selection zone and the fact as borne on record that there are three other meritorious candidates who got more marks than the petitioner. The Writ Petition is however disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for \ l0 SN. J the post Trained Graduate appoantment to Teacher(Telugu) in the existing available vacancy of C.Mahtatr if the petitioner is otherwise eligible in accordance to law within a period of eight (OE) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision on the subject is;sue to the petitioner. However, there shalt be no order as l:o costs. Misc3llaneous petitions, if any, pending in j.his Writ Petition, shall t;tand closed. //TRUECOPY// ,\ \ 1r SD/-T. TIRUMALA DEVI \ DEPUTY REGISTRAR sEc rloN oFFlcER { T 'lr/adhyamika TclanoanEr. Hvderabad. Oii""tor, itrintriya HVderabarl.

1. The Comnrissi'ner, and Director of School Edu\alion and Ex.(.rfficio Project ' Shiksha Abhiyahi Governmeni of Telangana, z it" pri""ip-al s,ecretary, School Education Departmert, secretariat. state of 3 o;;clcto sriD. Bala Kishan Rao, AdvocateloPUCl 4. Two CC to The naOitionaiAlvoiiiu C"nerat, ftigh Corirt for th,:r State of 5 Two CD CoPies w Telangana, at llYderabad[OUT] To, TJ r a I. F HIGH COURT CC TODAY DATED:25,t04,t2025 i I r t. t I] i ORDER WP.No.22182 ot 2022 H1 €i l4 2 2 ntu, 288 iJ . rt, .:. l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITTON WITHOUT ICOSTS s(d4 W #as