The High Court · 2025

above circumstances' the directing the Official revised selection list' on .O.Ms.No.61B, dated 18- ent orderS to those cted in the revised Grade Teachers' The eted within a Period of ceiPt of this order' No 8 I tN v th b e n v r r e lf of r a Nos 9 n 1 o re r c dh reun de *9. In reply to paras-8 & 9 of the affldavit' it is submitted that, as per the Judgment of this - *!rr-tl.:!L:i-\ e: *.*ir, \ I 6 w.p.nro.2eB27 or 2?1C nd e Ee,rise d List. BC.B 'General) Ho n trle Court in CC (TR) No.2/2017 59 .:2)19 Revised List was prepared and a s f)er the se id Revised List the cut_off marks for BC_B (C enera l) are 57.5. The petitioner has secured 55 m,rrks with 1628 Ran k. As per the Old Seiectir.rn List thr: cut-off marks for BC-B (General) category are 54 anJ as per the Revised List the cut_off mar<s tor cate90ry are 57 .5. A he Detitioner' e e o r t do es no f o and as suc I hi:; representation was r ejected. With regard to one Rachamalla Srinivas rs con cern ed he was app()int€rd as SGT T/M under BC-D (General), hence the petitioner does not sta nd on par with him. Th e r:for: the request of Ila Vidya Sagar, Galiela Raju (petitioner herein), Pogula Rajaiah, pathip,aka Padn anabham and Rang u Annaiah to re-con siJer their cas;e was rejected vide orders issued in Proce :dirgs Rc.No.9BlASl20 79 dated 21.8.2022 of the Distrrct Educational Officer, Karimnagar s c t 1O It is submitted that, thereafter, ita Vidya Sagar has again submitted an application in Prajav,rni on 24.4.2023 in the District Collectoratc, Karimr aga - with a request to provide employment rn DSC-1{)98 under BC_B category. Since the saiJ individrral has filed W.p. No. gg2/2022 before this Hon'ble Court to direct the Respondents to conside" his app icat on dated 22.11.2021, as per Notification 7 sN,l W.P,No'29827 of 2023 (Teacher Notification) DSC-1998' for appointing him in the post of SGT in Karimnagar District and this Hon'ble Court by orders dated 27'7'2022 directed the Respondents to consider the said representation by passing suitable speaking order and as directed by this Hon'ble Court' the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar considered his representation and passed speaking orders dated 27'B'2O22 rejecting his claim, and as he has again submitted application in Pravajavani and as the subiect matter peftains to Education Department' the District Collector vide Letter No'98/A5/2019' dated 26.4.2023 forwarded the said application to the Director, School Education' While forwarding the said application, the District Collector stated that' the said individual has secured 55'5 marks against the cut-off marks of 57'5 and he does not come under the zone of consideration' The District Collector finally stating that' since the DSC-1998 has happened in the year 1998 and it pertains to the entire erstwhile District of Karimnagar and since Commissioner, School Education is the 3'd Respondent in W'P'No'992/2022' requested the Director of School Education to issue appropriate orders, but not recommended or directed to issue appointment orders' It appears' the petitioner under mistaken impression and on an erroneous understanding of the tenor of the said letter' filed I i I I I I I I I I I 8 w.p.No.2es2z of ;!C p -ese n t Writ petition. It is submitted n ) merits in the Writ petition and it di sm i:;sed. ., that thore are is iiable to be DISCUSS]ON AND CONCLUSION:

9. ir is the specif, case oFthe petitioner that in r"iew of the fact th,rt G.o.Ms.N: ).221 dated 16.07.Igg4 was issued in erstwhil 3 aistrict depending on vacancies in the entire erstwhilt: di;trict and the new presidential order is now in operatiorr ar,d as Fer G.6.rr.ro.128 dated 30.06.2021 and vide G.C.Ms NO.147 dated 11.10.2016, District Educational OFfices h,ld been formed in New Districts and established on . and rhe ersrwhire Karimnasar Disrrict had been ll ll]j, u,, ur Ldteo Into seven happened n rhe year,':l;:: l:::.::.': ,::':,:,"j erstwhile l)istr ici oF Karimnagar. the case oF the pei:iiioner needs to be rec.onsidered.

10. It is rurr_her case of the petitioner that the secured 55 m,:rks whereas the cut off marks category is ars 54 and not 57.S as contended respondents petitioner for BC-B by the 9 5N/J w.P.No.29g27 of 2023 ll.Learnedcounselappearingonbehalfofthepetitioner also refers to the order dated 04'12'2009 in O'A'No'144 of 2006 passed in favour of the petitioner and contends that the impugned proceedings needs to be reconsidered in the light of the above said order' t2. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf oftherespondentNo'4,inparticular,paragraphNos.gand 10, contends that as the petitioner had secured only 55 marks with 1628 rank, the petitioner case does not come under the zone of consideration and therefore' the representation of the The learned counsel appearing on petitioner was rejected ' further contends that as per the old behalf of the resPondents marks for BC-B (General) category selection list, the cut-off petitioner admittedlY secured 55 are 57.5 and since the marks, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 21'OB'2O22 had been issued and there is no illegality in the said proceedings and the reliance placed by the petitioner in respect of another individual by name Vidya Sagar is of no relevance since the case of the said Vidya Sagar is reconsidered and rejected vide : 1 i I I l I l l I I 10 w.p,Nrr.2eezz of ;}C proce(rdin(js dated 21.08 .2022 by the District Educational officer, K; rimnagar and therefore, the writ petitio.t is devoid of mer ts and accord ingly, it has to be dismissed. 13. &- pertainj4g r Secreta ra._ r V since upcln_y I la_ I i t7 sN'l W.P.No.29A27 of 2O23 o o 2 2 s e ore nt is ue al o e l2 z 1 W stot e sc-1 99 T I 1 Education, t-4. A bare perusal of the Memo dated 2A'O9'2O24 Government issued bY the SPecial SecretarY to addressed to the Director of School Telangana, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above), clearly indicates that a request has been made to the Director of School Education' Telangana subsequent to the impugned proceedings, dated 2L.oa.zo22issuedbythe4threspondenttoconsiderthe case of the petitioner herein and to examine the issue and take necessary action in the matter' In view of the fact that the admittedly as borne on 15. record, the petitioner herein obtained favourable orders way back in the year 2009 in O A'No'144 of 2006 which was filed along with few others, and the batch of the said O'As were disposed of directing the otficial respondents there under to prepare a revised selection list on the basis of criteria in G.o.Ms.618, dated 18'05'1998 and issue appointment orders to those candidates who were selected in the revised selection list of Secondary Grade Teachers' this Court opines that the 8<, 'I I l l i 72 w.p.No.2eB27 of 2?I'j wh ile passing respondents herein had ignored the said orders the impug.led petitioner tm, T/M) proceedings, dated 21.08.2022 re_tecting the claim )f the petitioners For appointment to thr: post oF Second rry Grade Teachers (SGr) (retugu Medi pursuart tl the DSC Notification_1998, though the secured 5li marks, which is more than the cut_off marks prescribr:d n BC_B Category. A bare perusal of conterrts of the letter addres;sed by the 3,0 respondent, dated 26.04. 2023 to the Dir,:6;6-. School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad (referred to ,:nd extracted above) referring to a casr: of one I.Vidyasa lar, it had been clearly observed in the said letter that DSC_19,18 had happened in the year 1998 and it /tertains to the ent re erstwhile district of Karimnagar and vide the said letter, dat-.d :,.6.04.2023 in fact clarification and appropriate orders ha,j b,:en requested by the District Coilector and Magistrate, Ka -imnagar from the Director, School Edu,:ation, Telangana, Hvr1erabad informing specifically that the DSC_ 1998 entire fil,: is not being traceable. This Court opines that rn view of th€ tact that the said letter pertains to th.tt since the same is dated 26.04.2023 that is to the impugned proceedings issued to the I.Vidyasagar subsequent 13 SN,J W.P.No.29827 of 2O23 petitioner herein, dated 21'08'2022 of 4th respondent herein and in view of the fact that 5 marks relaxation had been given to all the candidates and appointment orders issued and since even according to the impugned proceedings' dated 21.08.2022 issued by the 4th respondent' petitioner had secured 55 marks, this Court opines that the subject issue requlres reconsideration.

16. Takin o n d a The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the a) case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the Government Pleader rePresenting learned Assistant Advocate General, aPPearing on learned Additional behalf of the resPondents' c) The averments made at paragraph Nos'9 and 1O of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 (referred to and extracted above)' .,r!. t' . it, r^I':l_r' I ; I I I ! l i I I i i i I I I , i 14 w.p.ro.2s827 of 2lo1'j d) Collector Directc,r, The contents of the tetter of the District and Magistrate, Karimnagar addressed to the School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad dated i16.04.2O23 (referred to and extracted above), e) .fhe order of the Tribunal dated O4.12.2OO9 in O.A.No.144 of 2OO6 in favour of the petitioner, t)

28.09.2(024 of Telangana, Tela nga r,a, above) ard, r'he Memo No.8O62lSer.tl/A2/2OZ:t the Speciat Secretary to Government, rssued to the Director of School Edtrcation Hyderabad (referred to and extracted g) The contents of the letter of the District Educationat Officer, Karimnagar dated 21.OA.2022 addressecl tc, the petitioner herein (referrecl trr and extracted above), The writ petition is ailowed setting aside the the District Educationat R.C.No.98/AS/2}tg lmpugned proceedings of Officer, K,rrimnagar vide 27.Oa.2O22 issued to the Petitioner herein. with a specific dir,ection to the respondents to reconsider the a l5 sN,l W.P.No.Z9A27 of 2023 claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of SecondaryGradeTeacher(TeluguMedium)intermsof the letter addressed by the respondent No'3 herein vide letter dated 26.04'2fr29 to the Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad in respect of another individual by name I'Vidyasagar and also the Memo No.8O62/Se r.].i]rl A2t2O23 dated 2a'Og'2O24 of the Secretary to Government addressed to the Director of School Education, Telangana' Hyderabad in respect of anotherindividualbynamel.Vidyasagar(referredto and extracted above), duly taking into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal in O'A'No'144 of 2OO6 dated O4.12.2OO9 in accordance to law' within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders deciding the subiect issue and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner' However' there shall be no order as to costs. -$. 15 SN.J W.P.No.2 9827 of 2023 l. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Fetition shall also stand closed. 1l //TRUE COPYII ".i,?it XpdS+ifR / \_ seErroru oFFtcER Ii8.i:i:il ili;,iiili?,;i3:::l'"" Department, reransanJ Secretariat, #f,ifiiIlt;i]ner and Dir-ector of Schoot Education, stare or reransana, +l: p,strc Cottector, Karimnagar District. fu*:. H;!^rythff;p$f,'Afri:;: r??y,:r +;'3trsT" x:|,'derabad r W " : j,a e .r To 1 2 |) 4 o

7. PSK. GJP , I i t i I I I I I I I , I I HIGH COURT DATED:11t0312025 ORDER WP.No.29827 of 2023 CC TODAY r:Hf. li T4)-€ 2 r fliIl 2025 (nr.? ? 7 a: t '. /t i : .-,-' t: A ALLOWING TT{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT (;OSTS \ o'\ .'t \, (,: 1P