V, Rahesh Babu, S/o v. Balaswamy, Aged about

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly ond in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the list of candidates selected in the ratio of 1:1 in spite of obtaining the requisite qualifications after the date of the issuance of the Notification 17 of 2017 d1.14.04.2017, in explicit violation of the noiification, as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution and violative of the- principles of natural justice, and consequently to and quash the impugned Selected Candidates list to the extent of unqualified candidates selected in violation of the impugned Notification by calling for the records relating to the list of candidates selected in the ratio of '1 :1 and further direct the respondents to include the names of the petitioners herein in the said selection list of 1 :1 as they are immediately eligible. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents from continuing any further with the selection process, including issuance of appointment orders pending disposal of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SMT. B.RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI K.BUCHI BABU The Court made the following: ORDER n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESII BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. 31781 OF 20ta ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed to declare respondents, actions in selecting candidates, who did not possess requisite qualilrcations as on the date of No[ification No. 17 of 2017, daLed 14.04.2017, for the post of Art Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies (RtrlS) for Zones V and VI as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of thc Constitution of India. Petitioners seek to cancel the selcction ol such unqualified candidates and instead, to consider them who are next in the merit 1ist, for the said appointments.

2. Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) issued subject Notification inviting on line Applications liom qualified candidates for the post of Art Teachers in REIS. Item 4 of the said notification expllcitly required candidates to posscss requisitc qualihcations as per the relevant Bye Lavvs/ Service Regulations by the date of notification. Subsequently. TSPSC issued a revised Web Notification with amended qualifications and extended the application period tili 11.05.2017. In response thereto, petitioners applied for the post, appeared for written examination and were provisionally-qualified. However, they i : I ! I I t i 1 I 2 \^,ere not included in the final selection list despite being eligible and possessing the requisite qualihcations. It is alleged that some of the selected candida[es acquired TCC Higher Certificate after the notificalion date i c'

14.O4.2017. Notihcation and Web Notification explicitly required candidates to possess all qualilications by 14'O4.2017 Although the application period was extended until 11052017, no extension for acquiring qualihcations was granted. Memo dated

02.O2.2OIA ciirectcd provisionally qualified candidates to attend ccrtificate verification. It reiterated that qualifications mrlst align with the NoLification and revised Web Notification, as of

14.O4 .'2017 . Furthermore, the Basic Information Data (Che ck List) issuecl to candidates explicitly required qualifications as on 14 .O4.2017 . It is contended that Technical Teacher's Certificate course completion necessarily requires passing both the TCC Lower ancl Higher Grade Drawing Exams. Therefore, candidates rvi-ro acquired their qualifications after 14.O4-2017 were ineligible under the notification's terms. Despite this, petitioners allege that respondents included severai ineligible candidates in the selection list at Sl. Nos. 109, 17O, 122, 184, 186, 794,236,245,247' and 249' 3 among others. These candidates obtained their TCC Higher Certilrcates only on 26.04.2017. The inclusion of such candidates is deemed illegal and contrary to notification,s explicit requirements. It is stated, if these ineligible candidates are removed, petitioners, who scored just below the cut off marks, would qualify for the selection list. Specifically, in Zone V, the open category cut-off marks were 1 16, and some petitioners scored 113, 114, and 115. In Zone VI, the cut-off marks rvere 112, and some petitioners scored 1O9, 110, and

111. Representation dated 20.O8.2018 therefore, was stated to have bcen submitted to respondents, however, no action uras taken.

3. This Court, by order dated 19.09.2O 18, directecl that any appointment made shall abide by the result of Writ Petition.

4. Petitioners have also taken out I.A_No. 2 of 2018 to implead proposed respondents as Respondents 2 to 5 to the Writ Petition. The said Application was ordered on 04.1O.201g.

5. In the counter fi1ed on behalf ofTSpSC, il is stated, all the selccted candidates fulfilled the eligibility criteria specified in the notification. According to the subject 4 Notihcation, the required qualiircations for the post of Art Teachers included possessing a TCC in Drau'ing, without specifying higher or lou,er grades. Subsequently, revised quaiillcations u,ere issued through a web. notification Per instructions from the RtrIS The TSPSC adhered to Sub-rule 3(a) of Rule 12 of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules, which mandates that candidates should possess prescribed qualihcations as of the notification date. This rcspondent emphasizes that candidates refcrred to by petitioners held lowcr grade TCC certificates by 11.04.2077, as the revised qualifications did not differentiate betu,een higher and lou,er gradcs of TCC, possession of either grade suffices. It is stated also that petitioners participaLed in the selection process br-rt were not included in the final list due to lower merit. Thcir challenge to the selection criteria post-participation is untenable-

6. Ms. ts. Rachana Reddy, learned Scnior counsel appearing for petitioners submits that TGPSC, in a similar case under Notification No. 14 of 2Ol7 for the post of TGT Mathematics, rejected selection of a candidate for possessing qualifications after the notification date and the same principle should apply here in this case. It is submitted that one of the \ I 5 qualifications prescribed as essential and possession ol qualifrcation as on the date of notification re. 14.04.2077 is Technical Certificate Course and many of the candidates, who are now selected, do not have the certihcate as required by thc cut-off date. According to learned Senior Counsel, unless the candidate passes higher grade also, he cannot be treated as a pcrson having valid Technical Certiftcate Course in Drawing and this u,as not obtained by many of the candidates by the cut-off date. She places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Suprcmc Court in Civil Appeal No.2635 and 2636 ot 20 13, datcd O7. I1.2024, and submits that recruitment process commences from the issuance of the advertiscment calling for applications and ends u,ith hlling up o[ vacancies and cligibilih' criteria lor being placed in the Select Llst, notified at thc commencemerlI ol the recruitment process, cannot be changed midu.ay through the recruitment process unless the ex[ant Rules so permiL or the advertisement, which is not contrary lo the extant Rules, so permit. trven if such changc is permissible under tl-re extant Rules or the advertisement, the change would have to mcet the requireme nt of Article 14 of the Constitution and satisfy the test of non-arbitrariness. 6

7. Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of TGPSC submits that as the notifrcation does not prescribe possession ol higher grade, possession of lower grade is sufficient and the candidates selected have lower grade ccrtificates by the cut off date. He relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishal Ashok Thorat a' Rajesh Shrirambapu Fatel to submit that intr:rfercnce with select list by Court without permitting challenge to advcrtisements pursuant Lo which it ll'as prepared is unsustainable. 8 Ilaving heard learncd counsel on either side and having perused the material on record, it is evident, undisputedly, that somc of thc selected candidates obtained requisite qualifications for the post of Art Teachers i.e' TCC Higher Ccrtificate on 26.04.2017 which is after the dale of impugned notificatior-r dated 14.O4.2O 17. As per Item No.4 of the said notrfication as well as web notification, applicants who apply for the post of Art Teacher should possess the requisite educational quahlications as mentioned therein by the date of notifrcation ie. 14.04.2017 . In the web notificatior-r, revised qualifications were given to thc effect that candidates should ' (2020) lpcc 673 1 possess SSC, TCC (Technical Certificate Course) which, in the normal sense, means that candidate should have passed i) lower grade drawing exam and ii) higher grade drawing exams; Technical Teacher's Certihcate by the date of notification dated

74.O4 .2017 . After verification of certificates, a selected list of candidates was prepared in the ratio of 1:1 in which the names of candidates who did not possess TCC Certificate (Higher Grade) by the date of notihcation i-e. l4-O4.2O17 and rvho possesse d the ccrtificate on 26.04 .2017 wcre includecl ln the said sclection list, they stood at Sl.Nos. 109,1 10, 122, 784. 18(t. 194,236, 245, 247 and 249. In the meanwhrle, one oi the petitioners obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2O05, uide proceedings dated Il-122O18 wherein it js clearll, stated tha[ a candidate is deemed to have possessed TCC Certificate if only he passes both lower grade as well as bigher grade and merc passing in lower grade cxamination in dr-:ru'ing is not enough to complete the Technical Cerlilicate Course lf the Authority felt that even TCC (lower grade in drav'ing) u'as sufficient, it would have specihed so even under item No (ii) of the above Web Notification which only reads "TCC in Drawing'' The authorlties clearly knew that possession of TCC in Dran'ing means a candidate should have passed both lower as well as I l I I I 8 higher grade in Dr-au,ing and there is no ambiguity in coming to the said conclusion.

9. It is to be noted here that even in C.O.Ms.No. 12, datcd 23.01-2009, the qualihcation prescribed for appointment to the posl ol' Art Teacher is 'a certiltcate in higher grade drawing and a technical teacher certificate of Government of A.P.'. In view of the same, the submission of learned Senior Cor-rnsel lor TGPSC that notification does not prescribe possessiorr ol tlgher grade, hence, possession of lower grade is suflicicnt :rncl the candidates selected havc lovgcr grade cerl-ificertes by tirr: cut-off dzrtc, czrnnot be accepted. Unless the candidate passes higher grade, he cannot be lreated as a pcrson havir-rg r.,irlicl Tr:chnical .Certihczrte Course in Drar,',ing. Admittedly, the selected candidates at Sl.Nos. lO9, 17O, 122, i84, 186, 194, 236, 245, 217 and 249 did not posscsscs thc requisite qualifications as on the date of notification i.e. 7,+.O1.2O1,'i as they p:rssed TCC highcr gradc on 26.O4.2017 i.e. aftcr tl're date oI notification. Here, it is to be observed that TGPSC, uncier Notification No. 1,4 of 2017, for the post of TGT Mathematics, rejccted selection of a candidate for possessing cptalifications after the notihcation date and the same principle would apply herein in this case. As has already been held by 9 the Hon'bie Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 2635 and 2636 of 2013, dated 07.11.2024, recruitment process commences fromissuanceofadvertisementcallingforapplicationsandends with fi1ling up of vacancies and eligibility criteria for being placed in the select list, notihed at the commencement of the recruitment cannot be changed midway through the recruitment process unless the extant Rules so pcrmil or the advertisement, which is not contrary to the extant Rules' so permit. trven if such a change is permissible under the extant Rules or thc adr,'ertisement, the change vt'ould have to meet the 1 4 of the Constitution and satisfy the test re quirement of Article of non-arbitrariness. In view of the settle<l legai position' in the I O. considered opinion of this Court' lhe irnpr-rgt-red sele c [e d canclidates' list to the cxtent o[ unqualified candidzrtes is liable to be set aside The Writ Petition is accordingly' allowcd' settlng 11. aside the selected candidates' list to the extcnt of unqualifred candidates. Consequently, respondents are directed to include the names of petitioners who claim to be the immediate eligible canciidates in the seiection list of 1:1' No costs' { 10 12 Consequently, Miscellaneous Applicalions, if any i shall stand closed That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTTCE SUJOY PAUL, on this MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRINIVASA REDDY NT REGISTRAR ASS ,u .i SECTION OFFICER To \

1. The Secretary, Telangana State Public Service Commission, Nampally, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. One CC to SIVT. B.RACHNA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI K.BUCHI BABU, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies PSK GJP 5 HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.3178'l of 2018 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Qlqs tu* H E. 1 S {i s ,J A0 BP tLJtl ? (. t' a ( , o ESnn''r'uf + -. j o