The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Pr:titiorrer: SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO Counsel for the Respc,rrdents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION/ Gp FOR SERV|CES-I & il The Court made the f,c I owing: ORDER ..-.*&e*t& HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI oN No.4 239 of o1E ORDER: The petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Tribe (ST) (Women) category, was selected for the post of School Assistant (Telugu) under DSC-2O12 and secured Sl.No.17 in the selection list, but her appointment order was withheld on the ground of ambiguity regarding her local candidature between Nalgonda and Ranga Reddy Districts. Despite being meritorious, the petitioner' was denied timely appointment while candidates above and below her in the selection list were appointed during filing 2OL2-2073. She approached the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by O.A.No.1541/2013, which was allowed on 30'04'2013 with a dirQction to the respondents to appoint her to the said post under ST (Women) category as a local candidate of Ranga Reddy District. The said order was challenged by the respondents in W.P.No.4330 /2014 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 09.03.2014 with a further direction to comply with the :::t- 2 Tribura'r; crder within four weeks. Consequr-.ntl'7, the 3'd issued posting orders rride Procs. responcle n I Rc.No 1ll;)O/A4/2012 dated 30.05.2014, ,3nd the petiticn:" s;ubmitted her joining report on 31 05.2Ot4. The petil.ioner submitted a representatio r dated

22.09 201.1 stating that her pay was fixed from the date of joininq, unlike her juniors whose pay was fi:xed from their ,:arlir:r dates of joining, thereby depriving her of seniorit,/,lnd consequential service benefits. The 3,.d responden:, taking note of similar issues far:ed by other candidates, addressed a letter Lr.Rc.No,11l;00/A4/2012 dated 07.it.1.2015 to the 2nd respondent exDlai'ting that the petti,lrrer's appointment was delayed clue to court cases a1(l certificate verification, and sought ins;tructions for extern Jing notional benefits. Another repre!;entation dated jt).Ct6.20t7 was submitted by the petitioner seeking notional seniority and parity in pay witl, juniors, but no resf)()nse was received.

2. 'l-her petitioner contends that the denial ol' notional senioritl arrd service benefits, despite her merit-based selectir:n arrd the fact that less meritorious; r:erndidates I \ Hyderabao .\' L I B. Two CD CoP et; - -eqbd{a-L - were appointed earlier, is arbitrary and discriminatory. She challenges Proceedings Rc.No.fl550/A412012 dated

22.04.2019 issued by the 3'd respondent, and seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the respondents' inaction in granting her notional seniority with effect from 27.12.2012 and consequential benefits as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India. 3 Heard Mr. Ch. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner; and learned Government Pleader for School Education, and learned Government Pleader for Services I and II. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the Iines of writ affidavit, would essentially contend that the petitioner, who belongs to the Scnedirled Tribe (ST) (Women) category, was selected for the post of School Assistant (Telugu) under DSC-2012 and secured Sl'No,17 in the selection list, but her appointment was wrongfully withheld due to ambiguity regarding her local candidature between !- \l Nalgorcla and Ranga Reddy Districts. Despil-e her merit, she was denied timely appointment, while other candiclat{:s were appointed in 2012-?-01'). After approa<:1 11,7 the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, the H,rn'irler Tribunal directed her appointment ,ls a local candiclat,: clf Ranga Reddy District, which was tlpheld by the H gh (-i:urt. However, despite joining on 31 05.2014, her par,r ur;rs fixed from the date of joininr;, r'rnlike her juniors, ce:priving her of seniority and r:ons;equential benef,ts,;.'lhe petitioner made repeated repres;entations for n ctior al seniority and parity in pay, wl- ich were ignored, ;r rd the rejection of her requesl' b',' the 3'd responrlent was arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner vrould argue that the denial of notional seniority and s,=rvice benefits, despite her merit-based selection, is unconsti.:ltiona[, violating Articles 14 ancl 1(i of the Constitrrt orr, and that the respondents' failrrre I,o extend the beneli::;, as claimed, is illegal and unjust,

5. Lr:arned counsel for the respondent, basing on the count,3r :ffidavit, essentially contends that the gretitioner, -, though s;,:lt-.cted under the ST Women local category for l\ Hyderaoao. 1t-r - B. Two CD Co tes #ffi, t$i& ,:i**,r- 1 :. .' the post of School Assistant (Telugu) in DSC-2O12 for Ranga Reddy District, was rightly denied appointment initially as she was not a genuine local candidate, having studied from Class I to IX in Nalgonda District and passed Class X privately; her eventual appointment dated 30.05.2014 was made purely pursuant to judicial directions in OA.No.154U2O13 and WP.No.4330/2014, which were limited to appointment alone and did not grant any relief relating to fixation of seniority or consequential benefits; the petitioner never sought such relief before the Tribunal and, having accepted her appointment unconditionally and joined duty without protest on 31.05.2014, her belated request for seniority from 27.12.2012 is hit by delay and laches; the respondents have rightly rejected her representation through a speaking order dated 22.04.2019 after due examination and clarification from the Commissioner & Director of School Education, since Rule 33 of the AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, and well- settled legal principles as held in Kuttiappan vs. UOI, 1997 (7) SLR 579, Direct Recruitment Class II Engg. 7 :l{et 6 r.i Officen; \ssn. vs. State of Maharashtra, 1993 (6) JT (SC) 447, rrnd SiLP(C).No.30636/2009, make it clear that seniorii:y 'rr direct recruits begins only from the date of appoinl-nrer t,, not selection; moreover, allcwing such .relief uroulc not only undermine the rule position but also open flcrc,rlgates for simllarly situated candidates from various; Dll(.s and districts, thereby prejrrdicing pending matters arr,l disturbing settled seniority positions' tl;eving considered the respective contentions and

6. perused tlt: record, it may be noted that the p'::titioner, belonging tc the Scheduled Tribe (ST) (Women) tategory, was sr-,lr:r:t:d for the post of School Assistant (Telugu) under DSi,l-2012 and secured Sl.No.17 in the selection list. Ho,,tr:'rer, her appointment was withheld due to ambiguil:1' regarding her local candidature between Nalgorda arnd Ranga Reddy Districts. Derspil.e being meritori l,.isi, the petitioner was denied timely appointrnt:rtt, while candidates above and brelo'ry her in the selec:irl r list were appointed during 20112-2r)13. She approarche,tl the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesl. Administrative .., Tribunal, l-lvderabad, by filing O.A.No.1541,/2013, which ffiP was allowed on 30.04.2073 with a direction to the respondents to appoint her to the said post under ST (Women) category as a local candidate of Ranga Reddy District. The said order was challenged by the respondents in W.P.No.4330/2O14 before the High Coutt, which was dismissed on 09.03.2014 with a further direction to comply with the Tribunal's order within four weeks.

7. Consequently, the 3'd respondent issued posting orders vide Procs.Rc.No. LL500/A4/2OL2 dated 30.05.2014, and the petitioner submitted her joining report on 31.05.2014. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 22.09.2014 stating that her pay was fixed from the date of joining, unlike her juniors whose pay was fixed from their earlier dates of joining, thereby depriving her of seniority and consequential service benefits. The 3'd respondent, taking note of similar issues faced by other candidates, addressed a letter Lr.Rc.No.115OOlA4/2O72 dated 07.04.2015 to the 2nd respondent explaining that the petitioner's appointment was delayed due to court cases and certificate '\l ',1 r'l r. - 8 Verificatioll , and SoUght instructions for extending notional benefits. Another representation dated 30.06.20';.) was submitted by the petitioner seeking notional s;:rriority and parity in pay with juniors, but no responso ',r'as received. The petitioner contends that the denial of rcrtional seniority and service benefits, despite her nr€rril'ilased selection and the fact that less meritori()us candidates were appointed earlier, is arbitrary and dis;,:'minatory. She challenges Proceedings Rc.No. ttlj:;OlA4/2O12 dated 22.04.20t9 issued t'y the 3'd respondent/ and seeks issuance of a writ of m':lndamus declarinr; the respondents' inaction in granl:ing her notional seniority with effect from 27 '1 '2'2(tL2 and conseouerrl.ial benefits as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Artir:lt:-'; L4 and 16 of the Constitution of lnclia' --he learned counsel for the petitioner i:ontends a. that the pe:t.itioner was selected based or merit and was entitlerl to be appointed as a local candidate of Ranga Reddy Di:;t'ct. Despite the delay in her appointrnent due to legal ,:lallenges/ she should not be penalized by denying l-,-.r notional seniority and consequential benefits. 9 The respondents'failure to grant these benefits is - arbitrary and discriminatory, violating her rights under Articles t4 and 16 of the Constitution.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argues that the petitioner's appointment was delayed due to legal issues and cedificate verification, and that she was not a genuine local candidate of Ranga Reddy District. The respondents contend that the petitioner accepted her appointment without protest and did not seek relief regarding seniority before the Tribunal' The rejection of her representation for notional seniority was based on established legal principles and service rules. 1O. Upon careful examination of the pleadings and the Iegal principles involved, it is evident that the petitioner was selected based on merit and was entitled to be appointed as a local candidate of Ranga Reddy District' The delay in her appointment was due to legal challenges and not attributable to any fault on her part. The denial of notional seniority and consequential benefits is not justified, as it penalizes the petitioner for circumstances t I brc-- \l \ - beyorrd rerr control. The respondents'actions in this regard ilr€r arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the petitioner''s rights under Articles t4 and li; of the Constitui: o,r.

11. In light of the above, the writ petiticrn ir,; allowed, and ttr€r r'o:;pondents are directed to grant the petitioner notioral s;rrrriority with effect from 27.12..2012 arrd extend all consecluential benefits, including pay fixation, senioritT and other service benefits, as if she lrad been appointe,l on the said date. The respondents are further directec' to implement this order within a period of four weeks f orr the date of receipt of a copy of this jldgment. No cos;t:;. (:onsi(lquently, miscellaneous applications p,:)nding, if _ a!:'ll ill t l-is Writ Petition, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has be'ern made absolute as above. WitnessTHEHON'Bt-l:THEACTINGCHIEFJUSTICESUJOYPAUI,onthis WEDNESDAY, THE SIiI-X'I-EENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TIIVENTY FIVE //TRUE COPY// SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I I sECTtoN 6rptcen To Hvderabad S;trt,l of Telanqana

1. The Principal Sicretary, School Education Department, Secreta'iat, z itie Commis';i:r err and Di[ctor of School Education, Hyderabacl, T S' 3. The Distric' E dtrr;;rtional Officer, Ranga Reddy District 1.S. 4. One CC to Sill OTl JAGANNATHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CCs to (lP :OR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Cotrrt for th€ State of 6. Two Cts tO (lF :OR SERVICES--|, High Court for the State of Tr-'langana, at Z. Triro CCs k) (lF :OR SERVICES-ll, High Court for the lltate of l elangana, at Telanqana at -l'(lerabad. [OUT] --l Hvderabad. () L Hyderabad. ()Lrl B. Two CD Ccr HIGH COURT DATED:161A412,025 ORDER WP.No.41239 of 2018 1rlI s, :.\ k 9R c o 2 7 ,uri 45 a 05 .1 SD4 I ,-H,r i) '_ ;/ f. ;: ,,,// / ALLOWING T[{E WRIT PETITION WITHOUT CO{}TS @ 6l{