The High Court · 2025

Order

.. Respondents The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not issuing appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Extension Officer (Supervisor) Gr.l as arbitrary and illegal

2. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare Department for respondent No.1 and Sri .,,,-+*$- \ ..-- .-i.-- - 2 P.S.Rajash,:kar, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2.

with their consent, the writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. Toda'y, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this court in w.P.No.25531 of 2024 and batch dated 12.12.2025 and requested the Court to pass similar order in this writ petition also. The said submission is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

4. In view of the above and following the order passed in w.P.No.25531 of 2024 and batch dated 12.12.2025 and in terms thereof, ttris writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to re-considt:r the claim of the petitioner for appointmerit to the post of Extension officer (Supervisor) Grade-l in the respondent No.1 departme nt in pursuance of Notification No. 1 | /2022 dated 27.8.2o2i'., purely based on merit as was done in the cases of appointment/promotions of similarly situated candidates, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (og) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 't 3 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/. H.S.GOWRI SHAN KAR SISTANT REG N OFFICER To

2. 3. 4.

5. 6. PSK. HIGH COIJRT DATED:1 611212025 , ORDER WP.No.30708 of 2025 IHE SI4 .. Cr 0 5 rt8 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS "dt IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA I{ARTHIK WRIT PETITION Nos.25837, 25531 4496 of 2024 Dated 12th December, 2025. Between: Mohammad Karishma and others. AND Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its PrinciPal Secretary, Higher Education DePartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. COMMON ORDER: ... Respondents Since the lis in these writ petitions is one and the same, they are heard together, and are being disposed of by way of this common order'

2. These Writ Petitions are filed seeking to declare the action of respond.ent Nos.2 to 4 in not considering the Master's Degree of the -Nagarjuna university, Guntur petitioners obtained from the Acharya District, through, distance mode, for their appointment to the post of Librarian under the controL of respondent Nos.3 ar:Ld 4, by referring to the Public Notice No.F.27-Ll2Ol2 (CPP-U) dated 27-06.2013, as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law, discriminatory, apart from being violative of Articles 2 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2O24 &'batch 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and also Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Rr:-organization Act, 2014, and consequently, to direct the respondentr; to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Librarian, duly recognizing their Master's Degree, by declaring that the Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 is inapplicable to the petitioners.

3. Heard Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitiorlers in w.P.No.25837 of 2024; sri M.v. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.2553 | of 2024; Sri p. Rama Sharana Sharma, lr:arned counsel for the petitioners in w.p.No.24496 of 2024; learned Government Pleader for services-I, appearing on behatf of respondent: Nos.1, 3 and 4; sri P.s. Rajasekhar, learned standing counsel for TelangeLna Public Service Commission, for respondent No.2; and Sri G. Vidya saggar, learned senior counsel, representing sri Sai prasen Gundavaretm, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent Nos.5 to 13. Although firi Mohd. Baseer Riyaz,learned counsel, filed vakalath on behalf of the peti';ioners in w.P.No.25837 of 2024 on 11 .og.2o2s, the matter had already been argued by the earlier learned counsel and it was posted for orders. Irt view thereof, this Court has proceeded to pass orders on the basis of the arguments already advanced. 3 PK, J w.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch

4.L Sri Goda Siva, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in W.P.No.25837 of 2024, submits that Acharya Nagarjuna University is a State University established in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh under Act 43 of 1976, and as a part of its curriculum, the University started providing undergraduate and postgraduate programmes through distance mode by establishing study centers in different parts of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Subsequently, after bifurcation, the study centers continued to operate and the University was enrolling the candidates belonging to the State of Telangana and was awarding them certificates/degrees. Likewise, the petitioners have prosecuted their Master's Degree in Llbrary and Information Science from Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur District, through its study centers situated in Telangana, during the years 2017 to 2022, and the said Degrees are also duly recognized by the University Grants Commission and the Distance Education Bureau.

4.2 It is submitted that respondent No.2 issued a General Recruitment Notification vide Notification No.30/2022 dated 3I.12.2022, inviting applications for the post of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4. In pursuance thereof, the petitioners, being fully qualified, applied for the said post, appeared and qualified in the written examination, and their names were also shown in the list of selected 4 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch candidates, and they were accordingly called for certificate verification. However, respondent No.2 has orally refused to consider the candidature of the petitioners, on the ground that the Master's Degrees of the petitioners were obtained frorn the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University, which are allegedly deemed as outside territorial jurisdiction, as per the Public Notice of the University Grants Commission dated

27.06.2013.

4.3 Learned Senior Counsel further submits that Section 95 of the Andhra Prztdesh Reorganization Act, 2014, mandates equal opportunities for quality higher education to all students belonging to both the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, with the continuation of existing admission quota for a period of ten years. As such, the Degrees grants by the State tlniversities established in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh are valid f<rr employment in both the successor States. However, contrary to the sarr.e, respondent No.2 is not accepting the Master's Degrees of the petitioners, in view of the aforesaid Fublic Notice dated 27.06.2O13.

4.4 It is further submitted that the Telangana Social Welfare Educational Institutions Societ5r, through respondent No.2, had earlier issued Notification No.20/2017 dated L4.O4.2OL7, for filling up the posts of Librarian in Residential Schools/Junior Colleges, and the candidates, possessinr3 the Master's Degree obtained through distance mode from 5 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch Acharya Nagarjuna University, were considered for recruitment and meritorious candidates were duly appointed, without any objections. It is also submitted that respondent No.3 also had earlier issued proceedings, filling up the posts of Librarian by way of promotion of Senior Assistants/Junior Assistants/Typists, wherein, the candidates possessing the Degree in Library Science through distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, whose admission was also subsequent to the issuance of Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, were aiso issued with promotion orders. As such, the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioners herein for appointment, based on the Mastert Degree obtained through distance mode from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University, is wholly illegal, arbitraly, bad in law, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India, and also in violation of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 20 14.

5.1 Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25531 of 2024, submits that the petitioners herein also possess their Master's Degree in Library Science obtained from Achar5ra Nagarjuna :, University, though distance mode, during the years 2OL6 to 2O2O. As such, in pursuance of Notification No.3O/2O22 dated 31.L2.2O22, these petitioners also participated in the recruitment process and stood 6 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2O24 & batch meritorious, Despite the same, on the same ground as urged supra, the respondentri were not considering the case of the petitioners for appointmer:.t. As such, the petitioners submitted their representation to respondent No.2 on 12.06.2024, requesting to consider their qualification as valid anrl to appoint them as Librarians based on their merit, but there was no resllonse. Thus, the petitioners filed W.P.No.16186 of 2024 before this Court, wherein, vide interim order dated OL.O7-2O24, this Court directed respondent No.2 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representat:ion of the petitioners. However, without reference to any of the submissiorrs made by the petitioners herein, respondent No.2 passed a speaking c,rder vide impugned Memo.No.453/Rectt-pool-Il/ 3 I 2022 dated

29.O8.2O2,[, rejecting the claim of the petitioners, by reiterating that they have stud.es from the study centers, which are not located within the territorial ; urisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna U nive rs ity.

5.2 Referring to the earlier recruitment Notification No.28/2017, learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 is adopting a different stand in different recruitments, as it had accepted the certificates and appointed the merit,rrious candidates therein, possessing the Master's Degree in Library science, obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna university, through distance tnode, while denying to consider the case of the petitioners who 7 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch possess the very same qualification, which is illegal, arbitrary and highly discriminatory

5.3 It is further submitted that as per Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, even after the bifurcation, the certificates obtained through distance mode from study centers in both the successor States, during the ten years, i.e., 2OL4-2O24, are valid for appointment and higher education. It is submitted that Kakatiya Universit5r, which has its territorial jurisdiction in Telangana, also operated study centers in the present State of Andhra Pradesh up to 2022, and. those certificates are treated as valid, for appointments and promotions. It is also submitted that the University Grants Commission has also granted approval to Acharya Nagarjuna University for running various courses, including Master's in Library Science, through Open and Distance Learning Mode, continuously from 2Ol4 to 2024. However, ignoring all these facts, respondent No.2 has rejected the candidature of the petitioners treating their valid. certificates as invalid, which is wholly illegal and arbitrary.

6. Similarly, Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.24496 of 2O24, submits that the petitioners herein also possess the Master's Degree in Library Science and in pursucurce of Notification No.30 of 2022 dated 31.12.2022, they have also 8 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2O24 & batch applied for the post of Librarian, appeared and stood meritorious in the written exarnination. However, their candidature is not being considered on the very same ground that they possess a Master's Degree obtained through dis;tance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, which is wholly illegztl, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.

7. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel and learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court to declare the Master's Ce,rtificates of the petitioners as valid, and consequently, to direct the respondents to consider their case for appointment to the post of Librarian, based on their merit, without reference to the rejection vide oral and impugned order, as the case may be. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in Sheo Syann and Others u. State of U.P. and. Othersr and State of Bihar and Others u. Shga,ma. Nand.an Mishra2

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l, 3 and 4, submits that in response ':o the orders issued by respondent No.l to notify the vacant teaching grosts in the Department vide G.O.Ms.No.116 dated 22.O7.2022, among otlter posts, (31) vacant posts of Librarian were notified by Public I (2OO5) 10 tiCC 314 2 (2022) 17 i;CC 420 9 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch Service Commission vide Notification No.30/2O22 dated 31.12.2022, in accordance with the qualification prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.26 dated

30.07.2021, read with G.O.Ms.No. 178 dated 09.12.2005. Subsequently, after conducting the written examination and verification of certificates, a merit list was published by Public Service Commission vide Lr.No.543/RP- III|3l2022 dated 04.10.2024, and in pursuance thereof, the Commissioner of Technical Education issued appointment orders to the meritorious candidates vide File No.CTE-EST2/SMSLl53l2024- ESTABLISHMENT-2-CTE dated O8.LO.2024. It is further submitted that out of the (31) notified posts of Llbtatian, (2) posts were withheld by the Public Service Commission and (24) candidates were issued with r appointment orders, in pursuance of which, the individuals also reported for duty at their respective institutions. It is further submitted that the role of respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 is confined to notify the vacancies aS per the service Rules and to issue the appointment orders based on the merit list furnished by the Public Service Commission.

9.1 Sri P.S._ Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, firstly submits that in compliance with the interim orders of this Court in these writ petitions, a total of (1a) vacancies were to be reserved. However, (3) candidates among the writ petitioners, with Hall Ticket 10 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2O24 & batch Nos.2303O0O225,2301O01446 and 2303000453 are not within the zone of consideration, as per their merit. As such, in compliance with the interim orders of thls Court, a total of (11) vacancies were reserved.

9.2 It is submitted that respondent No.2 issued Notification No.3O/2O2il dated 31.L2.2022, inviting applications for the posts of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4, and total of (Tll vacancies ((4O) under Intermediate Education and (31) under Technical Education) were notified, and the qualification prescribed for the said post, is mentioned in G.o.Ms.No.178 dated 09.L2.2oo5, G.o.Ms.No.26 dated

30.07.202I and G.o.Ms.No.79 dated 25.11.2002. In pursuance of the said Notilt:ation, the petitioners herein participated in the recmitment process. lt is submitted that all the petitioners herein completed their Master's in Library science in distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, through its study centers situated in Telangana, during the years 2Ol'7 to 2022. However, the Public Notice of the University Grants Commission dated 27.O6.2OL3 bars the Universities to operate study centers orrtside its territorial jurisdiction, and as per the Nagarjuna University Act, the territorial jurisdiction is Guntur and Ongole Districts only. As such, since the petitioners have joined the study centers of Acharya I'lagarjuna University outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University, after publication of the said Public Notice, they are ineligible for 1t PK, J w.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch appointment. Therefore, even if the proviso under Section 95 of the And.hra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2OL4, which guarantees equal opportunities to students for higher education, is made applicable, the petitioner's Master's Degrees are not valid, as the University is not authorized to operate study centers outside its jurisdiction.

9.3 It is further submitted that the University Grants Commission had addressed a letter dated O8.O9.2O15 to the University, clarifying that the University established or incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act, and that the programmes shall not be offered through franchising arrangement and/or through private institutions/colleges. It is submitted that the study centers, where the petitioners have studies, are not a part of Acharya Nagarjuna UniversitSr, and they are in the fashion of franchising arrangement with private institution. As such, the degrees of the petitioners are not valid, and therefore, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order dated 29.08.2024 (impugned in W.P.No.25531 of 2024l., rejecting the candidature of the petitioners.

9.4 It is further submitted that:in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.3OO6 of 2021, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition vide order dated 17.O8.2O22, i,tt view of the fact that the petitioners therein also prosecuted their Degrees though'distance education mode from t2 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 &-batch Acharya Nagarjuna University, through the study centers in Telangana, which are outside the territorial jurisdiction of the University. As such, the said prirciple is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. 1O.1 Sri G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the unofficial respondents, submits that in pursuance of Notification No.30/2O22 dated 31.12.2022, t!;e unoflicial respondents have also participated in the recruitment process, appeared for and cleared the written examination, and were called for certificate verification. However, in view of the subsisting interim orders of this Court, they were not issued with the a6rpointment orders. It is submitted that mere securing of higher marks and merit in the general ranking list does not entitle the petitioners to be considered for appointment, owing their unrecognized Master's Degree cercificates. lO.2 It is submitted that in response to the letter addressed by respondent No.2 dated 17.O5.2O24, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Guntur District, v:de letter dated 06.06.2024, communicated a list of candidates who have passed B.Li.Sc./M.Li.Sc. Degrees from their Universit5r from distance ,:ducation mode, wherein, the petitioner's narnes were also included, and against their name, it was recorded that they have undertaken their studies through distance mode in Telangana State. Further, ;rgainst the column, khether the study:centre is within the 13 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch jurisdiction limits of the University?', it was recorded as !es', as per Ref-3 of Part-XI of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2Ol4-- However, the said Acharya Nagarjuna University is located in Anclhra Prad'6Jh.

10.3 It is submitted that the University Grants Commission had earlier issued a Public Notice dated 27.O6.2OL3, whereby, certain guidelines were issued and the Universities were requested to offer only those programmes approved by the Universit5r Grants Commission and to follow the policy on territorial jurisdiction and study centers. As such, the Universities are not authorized to open study centers or off-campus centers beyond the territorial jurisdiction of such University, and a University established under an Act shall only operate within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to it und.er its Act. Thus, since the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University in only confined to Guntur, Prakasham and Krishna district, which now form a part of the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Master's Degrees obtained by the petitioners, through study centers in Telangana, are unrecognized. It is submitted that the Notification dated 31.12.2022 clearly specified that the educational qualification certificates obtained through distance education mode, contraqr to the notification of the University Grants Commission dated

27.O6.2OL3 are invalid.. Therefore, the petitioners' names were rightly excluded from the provisional selection list. L4 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2O24 & batch 1O.4 It is further submitted that Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014, provides for extension of equal opportunities for the studenl.s to get admissions in educational institutional as provident unde r ArticLe 3 17-D of the Constitution of India, which had continued for a further per,od of (10) years, from 20I4-2O24. However, the said proviso does not have any benefit of extending off-campus centers outside the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University. Therefore, degrees obtained from the study centers in Telangana District are not valid and recognized under the Act. [t is further submitted that the petitioners cannot claim negative equality, and seek a direction to validate their degrees, which are contrary to law. I 1, Therefore, learned Government Pleader, learned Standing Counsel, as well as the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondenls pray this Court to dismiss the present writ petitions. In support of their case, reliance has been placed upon the decisions of the i. Horr'ble Apex Court Prof. Yashpal and another u. State of Chhattisgarh and. otherss and Ramesh Cltandra Sha.h and otlrcrs u. Anil Joshi and othersa; 3 (2005) 5 SrlC 42O 4 (2013) 11 iiCC 3O9 f-' 15 PK, J w.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch ii. Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Subramanga Kumar Y.V. u Southern Power Distribution Co. of A.P. and otherss; and iii. This Court in W.P.No.30O6 of 2O2l dated 17.O8.2O22, and W.P.No.13823 of 2O23 dated L6.O7.2024. L2.l [n reply, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.25531 of 2024 submits that the petitioners have obtained their Degrees from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance mode, with due approvals granted by the University Grants Commission, and it has also been clarified by the University Grants Commission vide letter dated 27.O3.2024 that in view of Section 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act,2Ot4, Acharya Nagarjuna University is deemed to have territorial jurisdiction to operate study centers both in Telangana for a period of ten years. Further, similar clarification was also issued by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open Universit5r vide letter dated 22.OL.2O25 that it also had the jurisdiction to operate study centers in Andhra Pradesh until 2024. L2.2 It is further submitted that the Public Service Commission has been treating the M.Li.Sc. Degree and other degrees obtained from Achar5ra Nagarjuna University and Sri Venkateswara University through distance mode frorn 2014 to 2024 as valid, and accepted the said certificates during s 2007 (5) ALD 667 16 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch earlier recrritments and promotions. It is also submitted that in pursuance c,f DSC-2O24, the State Government had recently appointed one Ms. A. Roja as Language Pandit (Telugu) based on her Postgraduate Degree in Telugu obtained in 2018 from Sri Venkateswara University through distance education mode. Further, respondent No.2 has also appointed one candidate as Junior Lecturer (Telugu) in pursuance of Notification No.22/2O2',1,, in spite of the fact that the said candidate pursued her Master's De:gree in Telugu during 2016, through distance education mode.

12.3 It is further submitted that the reliance placed upon the order in W.P.No.3OO6 of 2021 is misconceived, as the said order has been passed without considering the scope of Section 6 and 95 of the Andhra Pradesh Rt:organization Act, 2014, and G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 18.05.2014, and also r;ince the said writ petition arose in a different context, i.e., admission to B.Ed./B.P.Ed. It is further submitted that in similar circumstarrces, where different stands were taken by the respondents in respect of the certificates of the candidates, resulting in termination of one set of canclidates, this Court allowed W.P.No.7746 of 2023, which was also confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment in W.A.No.1118 of 2023. It is further submitted that the Universit5r Grants Commissi,cn had stated that the State Government and the Universities themselves are competent to decide the validity of the certificates, and the 1j 17 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch State Government has never objected the certificates of the petitionerS. As such, the Master's Degree certilicates of the petitioners are valid.. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for appointment as Librarians, based on their merit.

13. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that in pursuance of the Notification No.30/2022 dated 3L.I2.2022, the petitioners applied for the post of Librarian under the control of respondent Nos.3 and 4, participated in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination, and stood meritorious therein. However, their cand.idature for appointment was rejected on the sole ground that they possess the qualification of tvtastei's in Library Science, obtained from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance education mode from its study centers situated in the State of Telangana.

14. The core dispute emanating for adjudication of this Court is whether the respondents are justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Librarian, by treating the petitioners'Master's Degree certificates as invalid, while earlier considering the case of the similarly situated individuals. 18 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch

15. Before adjudicating upon the validity of the petitioners' Master's Degree Certificates, it is apposite to note that in an earlier recruitmenl: vide NotificationNo.2Ol20iT dated 14.04.2017, issued by the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, the candidates possessing the very qualifications of Bachelor's and Master's in Library Scir:nce, obtained through distance education mode from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University, operating outside the State of Andhra Prttdesh, were not only permitted to participate in the recruitment process, btrt were also selected and appointed as Librarians in respective institutionr;. The petitioners have placed on record a copy of the proceedings in Rc.No.G/fS/5379/2019/Z-VI(G)/Librarian-9 dated

25.09.2019, to demonstrate the appointment of one Mr. Bandaru Venkateshwarlu, who possesses Bachelor's of Library Science from Acharya N agarjuna University.

16. Likewise, in respect of the recruitment for the post of Librarian in Govern:rtent Junior Colleges conducted under Notification No.28/2017 dated O2.O6.2OL7, the Public Service Commission had rejected the candidature of individuals holding the Master's in Library Science Degree obtained from the Universities in the State of Tamil Nadu, on the ground of territorial justification. However, the Degrees obtained from Acharya Nagarjuner University through distance education mode were never L9 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & ba{ch objected, and even appointments were issued to such candidates, on the basis of their merit. The petitioners have placed on record the relevant selection list and service particulars of certain individuals possessing the very same qualification. L7. Further, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that several individuals who acquired their Master's in Library Science Degrees through distance education mode from the study centers of Acharya Nagarjuna University in Telangana after the Public Notice of the Universit5r Grants Commission dated 27.06.20 13, were also considered for promotion to the post of Librarian in Government Junior Colleges. The petitioners have also placed on record the details of such candidates, viz., Mrs. Y. Vijaya Laxmi, Mrs. A. Praveena, Mrs. G. Swaroopa Rani, Mrs. N. Madhuri and Mr. A. Gangadhar, who are working as Librarians in Government Junior Colleges, having M.Li.Sc. qualification, obtained through distance education rnode from Acharya Nagarjuna University from 2OL8 to 2O2O.

18. Similarty, in pursuance of the Teachers Recruitment under DSC-2O24, one candidate Ms. A. Roja, who possesses a Master's of Arts Degree, obtained in the year 2018, through distance education mode from Sri Venkateswara University, which also operates beyond the State of Telangana, as that of Achar5ra Nagarjuna University, was appointed as Language Pandit (Telugu). The petitioners have placed on record a copy of 20 PK, J W.P.No.25837 of 2024 & batch the proceedings dated 09.1O.2O24 and her M.A. Certificate, to demonstrate her appointment on the basis of such certificate. The same is not denied by the respondents.

19. In view of the above, it is clear that the respondent authorities have consistently accepted the same qualification as that of the petitioners herein, i.e., Master's Degree in Library Science obtained through distance education rnode from Acharya Nagarjuna University outside the State of Andhra Pradesh, and on the basis of such certificates, appointments and promotions were granted to the said individuals. As such, this Court is of the view tlrat the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting/not considering the claim of the petitioners, who stand on an identical footing as that of the afores;lid individuals, amounts to a clear discrimination between similarly placed candidates and also violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutic,n of India, which action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law.

20. It is pertinent to note that none of the aforesaid instances were ever specilically denied by the respondents, apart from the sole contention that the pt:titioners cannot claim 'negative equality'for appointment merely because c,:rtain similar individuals were granted appointments. However, this Cour,- is of the considered view that the instant case does not fall under the principle of 'negative equality', as the petitioners are not re\ring 2L PK, J W.P.No.25{37 of 2O24 & batch upon a single appointment or promotion to claim parity. In fact, the petitioners have demonstrated a series of recruitments and promotions during several years, in due acceptance of the degree certificates obtained through distance education mode from the very same University. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the contention of the respondents that the petitioners cannot claim negative equality cannot be countenanced. Hence, the decisions relied upon by the respondents are inapplicable to the facts of the present case. 2L. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that impugned rejection/non-consideration of the petitioners herein for appointment to the post of Librarian is wholly unsustainable on the sole ground of discriminatory treatment vis-A-vis similarly situated individuals.

22. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing the respondents to consider/re-consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Librarian, in pursuance of Notification No.3O/2022 dated 3I.12.2022, purely based on their merit and without reference to the rejection order vide Memo.No.453/Rectt-pool-Il/ 3 12022 dated 29.O8.2024 (impugned in W.P.No.25531 of 20241, as was done in the cases of appointment/promotions of similarly situated candidates, as exped.itiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (O8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 22 PK, J W.P.No.25B37 of 2024 & batch Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these writ petitions, shall stand,:losed. No costs. Date: 12.12.i2O25 GSP JUSTICE PULLA I(ARTHIK