Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1256 (TS)

B. Siddappa v. State of Telangana

2025-10-17

PULLA KARTHIK

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to declare the impugned Proceedings in Rc.No.6441/B2/(B4)/2009-1, dated 15.09.2012 of the 4th respondent by rejecting the case of the applicants for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in DSC-2008, though, the applicants are fully eligible and entitled to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teachers as per their Educational Qualifications as was considered in the Memo No.677/Trg.3/2004-1, dated 11.02.2004 of the then State of Andhra Pradesh and also several candidates were permitted in the selections and appointments from DSC-1999 onwards, even then, the respondents were rejected the claims of the applicants for selection and appointment in DSC-2008 in Medak District the action of the respondents is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice and declare the same as bad in law and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for appointment for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers as per their selections in DSC-2008 in Medak District and will all consequential benefits and pass…” 2. The case of the petitioners is that they studied Intermediate, and thereafter, completed their two years’ course of TTC from Karnataka, which is allegedly equivalent to the TTC course in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. As such, in pursuance of the DSC-2008 Notification, the petitioners applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in Medak District, participated in the recruitment process, appeared in the written examination, and secured 30.5 and 25.0 marks respectively. However, they were not considered for appointment. Therefore, the petitioners filed O.A.No.194 of 2009 before the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), which was disposed of vide order dated 04.08.2010, directing the respondents to consider their case for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers, if they are otherwise eligible. Subsequently, in view of non compliance of the said order, the petitioners filed C.A.No.1161 of 2012, which was closed vide order dated 07.07.2014, recording the statement of the respondents that a speaking order dated 15.09.2012 had already been passed, rejecting the claim of the petitioners. Assailing the same, the present writ petition (TR) was filed. 3. Heard Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Assailing the same, the present writ petition (TR) was filed. 3. Heard Sri C. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No.3 has passed the present impugned order dated 15.09.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher, without proper application of mind, as the very same qualification and certificates of the petitioners now questioned were accepted by the respondents during the recruitment under DSC-1994 onwards. As such, the impugned reaction order is wholly illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that one candidate, Ms. N. Aruna, who appeared in DSC-2001 with similar qualification as that of the petitioners, was considered and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher vide proceedings dated 17.01.2002. It is further submitted that the certificates issued by Government of Karnataka were duly recognized by the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo.No.677/Trg.3/2004-1 dated 11.02.2004, and all the qualified candidates possessing the said certificate were considered for appointment until DSC-2006. It is further contended that the basis for appointment of several candidates in pursuance of DSCs-2000 and 2001 was also the very same qualification, which was never objected by the Government at any point of time, until DSC-2008, wherein, the petitioners, who acquired the said qualification in the year 1990 itself, were denied appointment on the sole ground that their certificates issued by the State of Karnataka were not equivalent. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays this Court to allow the present writ petition (TR) by setting aside the impugned rejection orders dated 15.09.2012, and consequently, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers in pursuance of DSC-2008. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that the petitioners have earlier approached the Tribunal and filed O.A.No.194 of 2009, seeking a direction to the respondents to entertain their applications for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in pursuance of DSC-2008. Thereafter, in pursuance of the interim directions therein, the petitioners’ applications were accepted and they were permitted to participate in the selection process, and the said O.A. was later disposed of on 04.08.2010, directing the respondents to consider their case for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers, if they are otherwise eligible. Thereafter, in pursuance of the interim directions therein, the petitioners’ applications were accepted and they were permitted to participate in the selection process, and the said O.A. was later disposed of on 04.08.2010, directing the respondents to consider their case for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers, if they are otherwise eligible. In compliance of the same, the case of the petitioners was considered for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher and the present impugned order dated 15.09.2012 has been passed, rejecting their claim, as they have not acquired the requisite academic and professional qualification as prescribed in the Recruitment Rules in G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 06.12.2008. 6. It is further submitted that after careful examination, the Government, in its Memo No.677/Trg.3/2004-1 dated 11.02.2004, issued a clarification on the certificated obtained from the State of Karnataka, and ordered to extend the benefit of eligibility to the applicants possessing the TTC obtained from the State of Karnataka prior to 31.10.1994 and who have passed TCH with two years Intermediate of Karnataka State beyond 31.10.1994 of elementary stage, to appear in the DSC, subject to the condition that the candidates should obtain Teacher Education Certificate at the elementary level from the institutions recognized by the NCTE, Bengaluru. It is further submitted that the instant O.A. was filed before the Tribunal after a lapse of four years of passing the impugned rejection order, without assigning any valid reasons. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioners that one Ms. M. Aruna, who possesses the very same qualification as that of the petitioners, was appointed is irrelevant, as the said recruitment was governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 16.07.1994, whereas, the recruitment under DSC-2008 is governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 06.12.2008. Therefore, the respondents are justified in rejecting the candidature of the petitioners vide impugned order dated 15.09.2012. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. This Court has taken note of the rival contentions/submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Admittedly, after their Intermediate, the petitioners pursued the two years’ course of TTC from Karnataka during 1990, and have applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in pursuance of the DSC-2008 Recruitment Notification. 7. This Court has taken note of the rival contentions/submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Admittedly, after their Intermediate, the petitioners pursued the two years’ course of TTC from Karnataka during 1990, and have applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher in pursuance of the DSC-2008 Recruitment Notification. However, since their applications were not considered, the petitioners filed O.A.No.194 of 2009 before the Tribunal, and in pursuance of the interim orders granted therein, their applications were considered and they were permitted to participate in the recruitment process. Subsequently, the Tribunal disposed of the O.A. vide order dated 14.08.2010, with the following direction: “3. Since the present OA., is also for the same relief, this O.A., is also disposed of with the same directions, holding that the cases of the applicants are to be considered for the posts of S.G.Ts., pursuant to DSC 2008 Notification, if they are otherwise eligible and qualified to hold that posts and further observing that, if the Certificates possessed by the applicants from Karnataka State valid Certificates, which can be treated as equal to the Certificates issued by the Education Department of our State. No order as to costs.” 9. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondents have considered the candidature of the petitioners herein and rejected their claim vide impugned orders dated 15.09.2012, on the sole ground that the petitioners have not acquired the requisite academic and professional qualifications to hold the post of Secondary Grade Teacher as prescribed in Rule-4 of G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 06.12.2008. The said Rule is extracted hereunder: “(a) Secondary Grade Teacher :- Must possess intermediate certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh and D.Ed certificate issued by the Director of Government Examinations, Andhra Pradesh. OR Must possess a Bachelor Degree and a B.Ed. (Subject to outcome of review petition filed in WP MP No.3030/2008 in WP No.12800/2007 & Batch in the High Court of AP and SLP No.27031/2008 filed in the Supreme Court of India.” 10. The main contention of the petitioner is that in earlier recruitments, i.e., DSC-2000 and 2001, the respondents have considered the candidature of such other candidates who possessed the very same qualification as that of the petitioners. Reliance has been placed upon the Government Memo.No.677/Trg.3/2004-1 dated 11.02.2004, wherein, the Government had accorded permission to the candidates possessing T.T.C. from Karnataka State, to appear in the DSC recruitments. Reliance has been placed upon the Government Memo.No.677/Trg.3/2004-1 dated 11.02.2004, wherein, the Government had accorded permission to the candidates possessing T.T.C. from Karnataka State, to appear in the DSC recruitments. The relevant portion of the said Memo reads as under: “The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad has stated in his letter that Government have issued orders extending the benefit of prospective T.T.C., holders of Karnataka state and also the equivalence of Karnataka. T.T.C., to that of T.T.C., of Andhra Pradesh to the applicants who possess Karnataka T.T.C., obtained prior to 31-10-1994 and they are eligible to appear only for D.S.C., 1999. Further he has stated that vide reference 2nd cited Government have extended the benefit of eligibility to the applicants who possess Karnataka T.T.C., prior to 31- 10-1994 to appear for DSC 2000. Subsequently, Government have extended the said benefit to the candidates appeared for D.S.C. 2001 and 2002 also in the references 3rd and 4th. He further stated that certain candidates who are appearing for D.S.C. 2003 have represented the Commissioner and Director of School Education to extend the orders issued vide Govt. Memo 4th cited so as to enable them to appear for D.S.C. 2003. He has requested the Government to examine the issue and pass suitable orders extending the benefit of eligibility to the applicants to appear to DSC 2003 who possess Karnataka TTC obtained prior to 31-10-1994 and also who passed T.C.H. with 2 years intermediate of Karnataka State beyond 31-101994 of elementary stage including Urdu Candidates, subject to condition that the candidates should obtain Teacher Education Certificate at the elementary level from the institutions recognized by NCTE, Banglore. 2. The Government have examined the matter and hereby order extending the benefit of eligibility to the applicants to appear to DSC who possess Karnataka T.T.C. obtained prior to 31.10.1994 and also who passed T.C.H., with 2 years Intermediate of Karnataka State beyond 31.10.1994 of elementary stage including Urdu candidates, subject to condition that the candidate should obtain Teacher Education Certificate at the elementary level from the institutions recognized by NCTE, Banglore.” 11. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Memo, it is clear that the Government had originally permitted the candidates possessing the professional qualification obtained from the State of Karnataka prior to 31.10.1994, to appear in the DSC recruitment during the year 1999. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Memo, it is clear that the Government had originally permitted the candidates possessing the professional qualification obtained from the State of Karnataka prior to 31.10.1994, to appear in the DSC recruitment during the year 1999. Thereafter, the said benefit had been extended periodically to the subsequent recruitments, i.e., DSC-2000, 2001 and 2002. The orders in the aforesaid Memo were passed in respect of the recruitment under the DSC-2003 recruitment. Here, it is relevant to note that the Government has not extended the said benefit to the subsequent recruitments. It is always the decision of the Government whether to extend the benefit award in the aforesaid Memo to the subsequent recruitments or not. However, as stated supra, the benefits of the Memo ended in the year 2003, which were only for the candidates who appeared in the recruitment process till DSC-2003. As such, the petitioners, who participated in the DSC- 2008 recruitment, cannot take shelter of the said Memo in the year 2008, unless it had been extended by the Government for future recruitments. 12. The petitioners also contended that one Ms. M. Aruna, who possesses the very same qualification as that of the petitioners, was appointed. The respondents categorically addressed this point, stating that the recruitment of the said candidate was governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.221 dated 16.07.1994. However, the recruitment under DSC-2008, is governed by the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 06.12.2008. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioners cannot seek any relief, without there being a challenge to the said rules. As such, in that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.02.2012. 13. Further, it is suffice to say, even though the petitioners are found to be eligible for appointment, the present petition was filed in the year 2016, at which point of time, they were aged about (47) years. Considering the same, they would be aged about (56) years as of today. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners on this ground as well. 14. In the light of the above made discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (TR) is dismissed. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners on this ground as well. 14. In the light of the above made discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (TR) is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stands closed.