Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 107 (TS)

Gajjela Raju v. State of Telangana

2025-03-11

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the Rc.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 wherein rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) (Telugu Medium T/M) pursuant to the DSC Notification 1998 though he secured 55 marks more than the cut-off marks prescribed in BC-B category is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (T/M) in terms of the Letter addressed by the 3 rd respondent vide Lr.No.98/A5/2019 dated 26.04.2023 by taking into consideration of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.144 of 2006 dated 04.12.2009 along with others in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner, who is qualified and eligible candidate, applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in Telugu Medium under the DSC Notification, 1998. The petitioner herein secured 55 marks, which exceeds the cut-off marks of 54 for the BC-B (General) category. However, the respondents without considering the petitioner’s merit passed orders vide R.C.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 issuing appointment orders in favour of two other individuals and rejected the petitioner for the said recruitment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD 4. The relevant portion of the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar vide R.C.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder: “This to inform you that the representation under reference 7 th cited along with the other references cited above, has been examined and it came to light that you secured only 55.00 marks, whereas the cut off marks are 57.5. In fact, the cut off marks were revised as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in C.C.(TR).No.2 of 2017, dated 5.9.2019 is 57.5. In fact, the cut off marks were revised as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in C.C.(TR).No.2 of 2017, dated 5.9.2019 is 57.5. As per the revised cut off marks, your case does not come under the zone of consideration and as such representation submitted by you is hereby rejected.” 5. The relevant portion of the letter of the District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar vide Lr.No.98/A5/2019 dated 26.04.2023 addressed to the Director, School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, in particular para Nos.5 and 6 are extracted hereunder: “ 5. Further, I submit that, the G.O.Ms. No. 221 Dated 16.7.1994 was issued in erstwhile District depending on vacancies in the entire erstwhile district and the New Presidential Order is now in operation as per G.O. Ms. No. 128 Dated 30.06.2021 and vide G.O. Ms. No. 147 Dated 11.10.2016, District Educational Offices has been formed in New Districts and established on 11.10.2016 and the erstwhile Karimnagar District has been bifurcated into (7) parts i.e. Karimnagar, Jagtial, Peddapally, Rajanna Sircilla and part of Siddipet, Hanmakonda and Jayashankar Bhupalapally and Collectors have been also appointed in New Districts. 6. Since the DSC 1998 has happened in the year 1998 and it pertains to the entire erstwhile Dist. of Karimnagr and since Commissioner, School Education is the third respondent in the WP.No. 992 of 2022, it is requested to kindly issue appropriate orders at the earliest.” 6. The relevant portion of the memo issued by the Special Secretary to Government vide R.C.No.8062/ Ser.II /A2/2023 dated 28.09.2024 to the Director, School Education, Telangana Hyderabad, is extracted hereunder: Memo.No.8062/Ser.II/A2/2023 Dated:28.09.2024 Sub:- School Education Department-DSC-1998-Grievance Petition of Gajjela Raju, S/o.Suryanarayana, Bhagyanagar, Karimnagar District-Request for appointment as SGT Telugu Medium Teacher under BC-B merit category in Karimnagar District-Reg. Ref:- Representation of Gajjela Raju, S/o.Suryanarayana, Bhagyangar, Karimnagar District, dated 30.08.2023 “A copy of the reference cited along with its enclosures is sent herewith to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad and she is requested to examine the Issue and take necessary action in the matter.” 7. Ref:- Representation of Gajjela Raju, S/o.Suryanarayana, Bhagyangar, Karimnagar District, dated 30.08.2023 “A copy of the reference cited along with its enclosures is sent herewith to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad and she is requested to examine the Issue and take necessary action in the matter.” 7. The relevant portion of the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in O.A.No.144 of 2006 in favour of the petitioner is extracted hereunder: “In the light of the above circumstances, the Applications are allowed directing the Official Respondents, to prepare a revised selection list, on the basis of the criteria in G.O.Ms.No.618, dated 18- 5-1998 and issue appointment orders to those candidates, who were selected in the revised selection list of Secondary Grade Teachers. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.” 8. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 and in particular, relevant paragraph Nos.9 and 10 are extracted hereunder: “ 9. In reply to paras-8 & 9 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, as per the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court in CC (TR) No.2/2017, dated 5.9.2019, Revised List was prepared and as per the said Revised List, the cut-off marks for BC-B (General) are 57.5. The petitioner has secured 55 marks with 1628 Rank. As per the Old Selection List the cut-off marks for BC-B (General) category are 54, and as per the Revised List the cut-off marks for BC-B (General) category are 57.5. As per the Revised List, the petitioner's case does not come under the zone of consideration, and as such his representation was rejected. With regard to one Rachamalla Srinivas is concerned, he was appointed as SGT T/M under BC-D (General), hence, the petitioner does not stand on par with him. Therefore, the request of Ila Vidya Sagar, Gajjela Raju (Petitioner herein), Pogula Rajaiah, Pathipaka Padmanabham and Rangu Annaiah to re-consider their case was rejected vide orders issued in Proceedings Rc.No.98/A5/2019, dated 21.8.2022 of the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar. 10. It is submitted that, thereafter, Ila Vidya Sagar has again submitted an application in Prajavani on 24.4.2023 in the District Collectorate, Karimnagar with a request to provide employment in DSC-1998 under BC-B category. 10. It is submitted that, thereafter, Ila Vidya Sagar has again submitted an application in Prajavani on 24.4.2023 in the District Collectorate, Karimnagar with a request to provide employment in DSC-1998 under BC-B category. Since the said individual has filed W.P. No. 992/2022 before this Hon'ble Court to direct the Respondents to consider his application dated 22.11.2021, as per Notification (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 21.8.2022 rejecting his claim, and as he has again submitted application in Pravajavani and as the subject matter pertains 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 rd 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 present Writ Petition. It is submitted that there are no merits in the Writ Petition and it is liable to be dismissed.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 9. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in view of the fact that G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 16.07.1994 was issued in erstwhile district depending on vacancies in the entire erstwhile district and the new Presidential order is now in operation and as per G.O.Ms.No.128 dated 30.06.2021 and vide G.O.Ms.NO.147 dated 11.10.2016, District Educational Offices had been formed in New Districts and established on 11.10.2016 and the erstwhile Karimnagar District had been bifurcated into seven parts and since the DSC 1998 has happened in the year, 1998 and it pertains to the entire erstwhile District of Karimnagar, the case of the petitioner needs to be reconsidered. 10. 10. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner secured 55 marks whereas the cut off marks for BC-B category is as 54 and not 57.5 as contended by the respondents. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4, in particular, paragraph Nos.9 and 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 petitioner was rejected. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents further contends that as per the old selection list, the cut-off marks for BC-B (General) category are 57.5 and since the petitioner admittedly secured 55 marks, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered and accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 21.08.2022 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 proceedings dated 21.08.2022 by the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar and therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, it has to be dismissed. 13. It is relevant to note that in similar issues pertaining to revised selection list of DSC-1998, dated 07.08.2018, in the Special Leave Petition filed by a candidate who participated in the DSC-1998, the Chief Secretary, Government of Telangana had filed an affidavit stating that the Government will look into the matter of selection and appointments of the candidates having lesser marks than the petitioners there under since upon verification, it is found that the persons with lesser marks than the petitioners there under had been selected and appointed and therefore, due accommodation will be given to the said petitioners in terms of the orders of the High Court. It is further pertinent to note that the affidavit of the Chief Secretary filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been referred to by the Division Bench of this Court in CA.Nos.19/2019 & batch. The above facts are even indicated in the earlier order of this Court, dated 05.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.18281 of 2020. The present issue also pertains to the DSC-1998. 14. A bare perusal of the Memo dated 28.09.2024 issued by the Special Secretary to Government addressed to the Director of School Education, 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 21.08.2022 issued by the 4 th respondent to consider the case of the petitioner herein and to examine the issue and take necessary action in the matter 15. In view of the fact that the admittedly as borne on 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 official 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 respondents herein had ignored the said orders while passing the impugned proceedings, dated 21.08.2022 rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) (Telugu Medium, T/M) pursuant to the DSC Notification-1998, though the petitioner secured 55 marks, which is more than the cut-off marks prescribed in BC-B Category. A bare perusal of contents of the letter addressed by the 3 rd respondent, dated 26.04.2023 to the Director, School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above) referring to a case of one I.Vidyasagar, it had been clearly observed in the said letter that DSC-1998 had happened in the year 1998 and it pertains to the entire erstwhile district of Karimnagar and vide the said letter, dated 26.04.2023 in fact clarification and appropriate orders had been requested by the District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar from the Director, School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad informing specifically that the DSC- 1998 entire file is not being traceable. This Court opines that in view of the fact that the said letter pertains to one I.Vidyasagar that since the same is dated 26.04.2023 that is subsequent to the impugned proceedings issued to the petitioner herein, dated 21.08.2022 of 4 th 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 4 th respondent, petitioner had secured 55 marks, this Court opines that the subject issue requires reconsideration. 16. 16. Taking into consideration: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The averments made at paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 (referred to and extracted above), d) The contents of the letter of the District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar addressed to the Director, School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad dated 26.04.2023 (referred to and extracted above), e) The order of the Tribunal dated 04.12.2009 in O.A.No.144 of 2006 in favour of the petitioner, f) The Memo No.8062/Ser.I I /A2/2023 dated 28.09.2024 of the Special Secretary to Government, Telangana, issued to the Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad (referred to and extracted above) and, g) The contents of the letter of the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar dated 21.08.2022 addressed to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), The writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar vide R.C.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 issued to the petitioner herein, with a specific direction to the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu Medium) in terms of the letter addressed by the respondent No.3 herein vide letter dated 26.04.2023 to the Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad in respect of another individual by name I .Vidyasagar and also the Memo No.8062/Ser.II /A2/2023 dated 28.09.2024 of the Secretary to Government addressed to the Director of School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad in respect of another individual by name I .Vidyasagar (referred to and extracted above), duly taking into consideration the order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.144 of 2006 dated 04.12.2009 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 subject issue and duly communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.