Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 432 (TS)

Mohammed Mehamood v. Commissioner

2025-04-25

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents on record. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring that the petitioner is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) under BC-E Category in the united Mahabubnagar District in the existing available vacancies pursuant to Notification No. 1/RMSA/Model Schools/ 2012, dated 6/2/2012 by duly extending the fruits of the Judgment of this Honorable Court dated 12/09/2016 passed in W.P.No.21927 of 2015 as confirmed in W.A.No. 289 of 2017 and batch, dated 17/11/2021 with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not considering the just claims of the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of TGT (Telugu) in spite of availability of vacancies even though his claim was deprived of for selection and appointment in view of preparing the selection list improperly which is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and pass…” 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent issued notification for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teachers and P.G.Ts vide notification No.01/RMSA/Model Schools/2012, dated 06.02.2012 and the petitioner was eligible for the above said posts as per the eligibility criteria given in the notification. The petitioner applied for the post and participated in the selection process with Hall Ticket No.61440500573 and secured 54.57 marks, but the last selected candidate in the Zone VI secured 54.63 marks which makes it evident and clear that the petitioner is the next meritorious candidate for the selection. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondents had called the selected candidates in the 1:1 ratio but not in 1:2 ratio for the certificate verification and during the verification process some of the individuals candidature was cancelled as they didn’t meet the eligibility criteria as mentioned in the notification and some others candidature was cancelled for submitting the false certificates and also some of the candidates didn’t appear for verification as they were already in better government services. Further the case of the petitioner is that the respondent didn’t follow the judgment of this court in W.P.No.21306/2005 dated 04.09.2006, whereby court ordered the respondents therein to consider the next meritorious and eligible candidates to fill up vacancies given in the notification there under. The above said judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble supreme court in Special Leave(CC) No.916/2007 dated 05.02.2007. It is further the case of the petitioner that the persons similarly situated have filed W.P.No.2197 of 2015 before this court and same was allowed by this court vide order, dated 12.09.2016 directing the respondents to redraw the provisional list and consider the case of the petitioners there under, subsequently writ appeal vide W.A.No.289 of 2017 and batch preferred by the respondents was dismissed vide orders dated 17.11.2021 by the division bench of this court upholding the order passed by the learned single bench. As the respondents were initiating steps to implement the above said order, the petitioner apprehended that his case might not be considered by the respondents as the petitioner was not a party in the above- mentioned writ petition and writ appeal, hence the petitioner preferred the present writ petition seeking this court to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also while redrawing the provisional list and preparing the selection list. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD. A. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, dated 31.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.511 of 2011 is extracted hereunder:- In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the aforesaid judgment, once a vacancy is advertised and the vacancy is unfilled, as the person in whose favour appointment order has been issued has not joined, the same cannot carry forward to the next selection. The next person in the waiting list should be appointed against the vacancy. However, in cases where appointment orders were issued, persons have joined and left thereafter, then the particular vacancies have to be carried forward to the next selection and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, in cases where appointment orders were issued, persons have joined and left thereafter, then the particular vacancies have to be carried forward to the next selection and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. B. The interim orders, dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No. 01 of 20222 in the present Writ Petition is extracted hereunder:- This petition is coming for instructions/counter of the respondents from 06.06.2022 onwards, but respondents failed to file instructions/counters. In view of the same, there shall be interim direction as prayed for. C. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and in particular para Nos.16 to 19 are extracted hereunder:- 16. It is submitted that, in Zone-VI, total 99 candidates were called for certificate verification for TGT Telugu basing on the merit as against the 99 vacancies notified. As per the Hon'ble High Court orders dated: 12.09.2016 this office has redrawn the selection list in Zone-VI and the case of the petitioner is examined and it has been found that, the petitioner is not coming under selection zone under BC-E (General) category. Total (3) posts were reserved for BC-E General category and (2) posts were filled under BC-E (General) category and (1) BC-E Women post is filled up with the eligible candidates as per merit. The marks of the selected candidates are ranging between 59.07 to 57.33 marks and marks of last selected candidate Shaik Althaf Hussain is 57.33 marks, whereas petitioner has secured 54.57 marks. Between the last selected candidate and the petitioner, there are three candidates in the merit list, who are more meritorious than the petitioner. 17. It is submitted that, the petitioner in para 3 of the affidavit compares himself with the candidate who is selected under BC-D reservation with 54.57 marks. The petitioner cannot compare himself with other reservation category candidates, as he belongs to BC-E General Category. Sl.No. Name of the candidate HT Number Marks Rank Remarks 1 Mohammad Abdul rabbani 61640500300 55.97 451 Not Selected candidates and not petitioners 2 Mahammad Shahedha Begum 61640500012 55.17 527 3 C Mahtab 61740500251 54.63 586 4 Mohammed Mehamood 61440500573 54.57 592 Petitioner 18. As shown in the above table, there are three other meritorious candidates who got more marks than the petitioner. As shown in the above table, there are three other meritorious candidates who got more marks than the petitioner. Hence, petitioner is not coming under selection zone. The claim of the of the petitioner @ para 8 that, he is next meritorious is false and not true. 19. It is submitted that, the respondent i.e, Director of School Education and Ex-Officio State Project Director Model Schools has redrawn the selection pursuant to the notification dated 06-02-2012 as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.6440 of 2015 & batch and W.A.No.289 of 2017 & batch as per guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.25, Education (SE-Prog.I) Dept., dated: 04.04.2013 and thus the petitioner did not find place as per the facts stated supra. The petitioner is making false and baseless claim to mislead the Hon’ble Court. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) in the existing available vacancy pursuant to notification No.1/ RMSA/ Model Schools/ 2012, dated 06.02.2012 may be considered as per directions of this Court, dated 20.02.2023 passed in I.A.No.01 of 2022 in the present Writ Petition. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that the candidate one C.Mahtab referred to at para No.17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents vacancy exists and therefore, petitioner’s case for appointment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) should be considered under the said existing vacancy as per the Division Bench of this Court, dated 31.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.511 of 2011 . 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in particular para Nos. 16 to 20 (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioner belongs to BC-E(General Category) and therefore, the petitioner cannot compare himself with other reservation category candidates and further, that there are three other meritorious candidates who got more marks than the petitioner and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner is next meritorious is disputed even as per the averments made in the counter affidavit at para No.17 and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 8. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment of post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Telugu) in the existing available vacancy of C.Mahtab subject to the petitioner being otherwise eligible as per rules. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents does not dispute the said submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 10. 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 learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The Division Bench of this Court, dated 31.12.2021 passed in W.A.No.511 of 2011 (referred to and extracted above) d) The interim orders, dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court in I.A.No. 01 of 20222 in the present Writ Petition (referred to and extracted above) e) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above ) This Court opines that the relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted in view of the specific averments made by the respondents in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above) that the petitioner is not coming under selection zone and the fact as borne on record that there are three other meritorious candidates who got more marks than the petitioner. The Writ Petition is how ever disposed of, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post Trained Graduate Teacher(Telugu) in the existing available vacancy of C.Mahtab if the petitioner is otherwise eligible in accordance to law within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order and pass appropriate orders and communicate the decision on the subject issue to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.