Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 693 (TS)

Tummanapalli Mamatha v. State of Telangana

2024-09-06

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

body2024
ORDER : Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J. The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue a Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the B.Ed., course of the Petitioner as requisite qualification for want of Methodology in concerned subject and rejecting the case of the Petitioner for the requisite qualification of Methodology in concerned subject in B.Ed., and also not considering the experience of the Petitioner as Vice Principal as administrative experience and rejecting the case of the petitioner for the post of Principal (Schools) in various REIS under Notification No 29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 issued for GENERAL RECRUITMENT by the 2nd Respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also set aside the Rejection Letter vide Memo No. 500/Principal REIS/2016 dated 26.06.2019 and the WEB NOTE dated 28.08.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent under Notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 issued for GENERAL RECRUITMENT of Principal (Schools) in various REIS issued by the 2nd Respondent, and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to the interview and also select the Petitioner if she is eligible for the post of Principal (Schools) in various REIS, considering her B.Ed., as requisite qualification and her experience as Vice Principal as administrative experience, under Notification No. 29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 and pass…” 2. Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case are as follows: i) The petitioner is a Chemistry Lecturer in Government Recognised Degree College, Jagityal. She worked as a Teacher in Government recognised in Suryodaya High School E/M, Koratla, from 2005-06 and 2008-10. She further worked as Vice Principal at Government Recognised Narendra Degree College, Metpally, from 01.06.2010 to 25.04.2014 and as a Lecturer in Chemistry in Government Narendra Cooperative Junior College, Metpally, Jagityal, from 01.06.2014 to 30.04.2016. While so, the TSPSC issued Notification No.29/2017, dated 02.06.2017, to recruit Principals (Schools) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies by General Recruitment. The petitioner applied for the post and was selected for the prelims. Consequently, she was allowed to write the Main Examination, which was conducted for 300 marks. While so, the TSPSC issued Notification No.29/2017, dated 02.06.2017, to recruit Principals (Schools) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies by General Recruitment. The petitioner applied for the post and was selected for the prelims. Consequently, she was allowed to write the Main Examination, which was conducted for 300 marks. Subsequently, several Writ Petitions were filed before this Court since the questions in the Main Examination were not appropriately prepared and irrelevant questions from various educational portals were copied into the examination. This Court was pleased to pass orders directing the TSPSC to delete 76 questions and prepare the marks list to the extent of only the remaining 224 questions. ii) The petitioner further stated that she secured 123 marks as per the official key released by the TSPSC. Subsequently, the TSPSC released the admitted list and the rejected list for the Interview. The petitioner was placed in Sl.No.243 in the rejected, list and the reason for the same was mentioned as “NO CONCERNED METHODOLOGY & VICE PRINCIPAL EXPERIENCE IN DEGREE COLLEGE IS NOT CONSIDERED”. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.7451 of 2019, challenging her rejection by the 2nd respondent. This Court allowed her Writ Petition along with W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch, on 10.04.2019, directing the writ petitioners therein to submit individual representations to the 2nd Respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner herein made a representation to the 2nd respondent on 16.04.2019 and 24.04.2019. However, the same was rejected vide Memo No.500/Principal REIS/2016 dated 26.06.2019 on the ground that Post Graduation and TGT experience (2005-2006 & 2008-2010) will not be taken into consideration as Teaching Experience & the experience from June 2010 to April 2014 as Vice Principal in Degree College is also not considered as Administrative Experience. No concerned Methodology in B.Ed., It is informed that according to the Notification, the qualification prescribed is Post Graduation in 2nd class. B.Ed.in concerned subject and Teaching Experience – Five years and Administrative Experience – Three years. And Teaching Experience as PGT/JL and Administrative Experience as Head Master/Principal Service are only considered. However, the petitioner acquired Teaching Experience earlier for Post-Graduation qualification and as TGT, which cannot be considered as experience. VicePrincipal service is also not considered as Administrative Experience. Therefore, the two years of Teaching Experience obtained with Post-Graduation qualification, i.e. 2014 to 2016, will alone be considered, and the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Notification. However, the petitioner acquired Teaching Experience earlier for Post-Graduation qualification and as TGT, which cannot be considered as experience. VicePrincipal service is also not considered as Administrative Experience. Therefore, the two years of Teaching Experience obtained with Post-Graduation qualification, i.e. 2014 to 2016, will alone be considered, and the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Notification. Therefore, the petitioner’s claim was considered in terms of the orders of the High Court and also based on the petitioner’s representation, her candidature was rejected on the grounds of: a) Lack of Teaching Experience for Three years with Post Graduation qualification. b) No Administrative Experience as a Vice Principal Service in Degree College is not considered. c) No concerned Methodology in B.Ed., as Bio science is not concerned methodology to Organic Chemistry. With the above said observation, the petitioner’s request was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Counter has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner completed her B.Ed., with Biological Science and English as Methodologies, whereas she misled the Court by saying that she acquired her B.Ed., with Methodologies of (i) Biological Sciences and (ii) Physical Sciences. It is clear from her B.Ed., certificate that she obtained English as one Methodology and not Physical Science as claimed by the petitioner. When the certificate of the petitioner, i.e. M.Sc., Organic Chemistry, as well as her B.Ed., Certificate, are examined, it is noticed that she does not have the Methodology in the concerned subject, i.e. in Physical Science. Hence, the petitioner’s candidature was rejected due to “No concerned Methodology in B.Ed., as Bio-Science is not a concerned methodology to Organic Chemistry.” They further submitted that as per the Orders of this Court in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch cases, the Commission has disposed of the representations of the petitioners after examination of each individual case by issuing individual speaking orders. Accordingly, the petitioner was issued a speaking order by way of Memo No. 500/Principal REIS/2016 dated 26.06.2019 to her representation dated 16.04.2019 explaining the reasons for rejecting her candidature. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that on similar grounds, one W.P.No.9131 of 2021 was dismissed by this Court by granting liberty to the petitioner therein to submit a representation to the 2nd respondent therein. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court that on similar grounds, one W.P.No.9131 of 2021 was dismissed by this Court by granting liberty to the petitioner therein to submit a representation to the 2nd respondent therein. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a direction to the petitioner herein to make a fresh representation to the authorities concerned. 6. In the light of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, is inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition by directing the Writ Petitioner to make a fresh representation before the authorities concerned within a period of (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such representation being made, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of (08) weeks therefrom. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.