Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 800 (AP)

Badugu John Daniel, S/o. Yacob v. State of AP

2025-07-01

KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

body2025
ORDER : KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J. Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services I and learned Government Pleader for Services II. 2. A notification inviting applications for recruitment of School Assistants in Zilla Parishad/Mandal Parishad, Secondary Grade Teachers, Language Pandits Grade-II and PETs in Government and Zilla Parishad/Mandal Parishad schools by the Commissioner and Director of School Education Department, was issued on 27.01.1996. 3. The relief sought by the petitioners is that they should be considered for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers on a Minimum Time Scale on par with DSC-1998 qualified candidates, who were absorbed into service vide G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 21.06.2021. The contention of the petitioners is that the Government has taken a decision in 2022 to appoint the candidates qualified in DSC-1998. However, the same benefit has not been extended to the qualified candidates of DSC-1996. 4. The petitioners attribute their non-selection to the post of SGTs/School Assistants at the relevant point of time to the following: (a) Adoption of the rule for carry forward of the vacancies of women and B.Cs. (b) Reservation for women was increased to 33 1/3% instead of 30% as specified under the notification. (c) Although no posts were earmarked for Ex-Servicemen, the Ex-Servicemen quota was applied. (d) Contrary to G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 01.08.1996, women were granted 35 roster points instead of 34. (e) After the issuance of the notification for selection, the rule that was in force as on the date of the notification should be applied, however, the same was not followed by the respondents and the subsequent Government Orders issued after the notification were considered. (f) Lesser meritorious women candidates were selected who did not even secure cut-off marks. (g) District was the unit of selection as of the date of notification; however, the same has been modified as Zonal, consequently modifying the reservation of local and non-local as 70:30 from 80:20, affecting the local candidates. (h) The candidates selected under DSC-1998 are eligible for appointment in the vacancies available up to March, 1998. 5. It is contended by the petitioners that since the selected candidates of DSC-1998 have been considered for appointment vide G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 21.06.2021, the petitioners who are in no way dissimilar to the candidates of DSC-1998, a direction is sought to the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment under minimum time scale without any other service benefits. 5. It is contended by the petitioners that since the selected candidates of DSC-1998 have been considered for appointment vide G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 21.06.2021, the petitioners who are in no way dissimilar to the candidates of DSC-1998, a direction is sought to the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment under minimum time scale without any other service benefits. The learned counsel further brought to the notice of the Court a Memo issued by the Government, dated 11.06.2025 where under the Government has taken a decision to renew the services of the DSC-2008 and DSC-1998 as contract teachers for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.06.2025 to 30.04.2026. 6. The respondents contend that, under the circumstances mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.39 dated 21.06.2021, the decision was taken to consider the cases of persons who fall within the zone of consideration and were affected by the change in the selection pattern for SGTs (Secondary Grade Teachers). It is further contended that the petitioners did not aver in the affidavit that they were selected and called for an interview, nor were they in the zone of consideration. It is further stated that the selection process of DSC-1996 had already been completed. At no point in time, the petitioners challenged the selection process; for the first time, after 25 years of the selection, a challenge was made to the process. 7. Considered the rival submissions. The grievance of the petitioners is that they, who qualified in DSC-1996, should have been considered on par with the selected candidates of DSC-1998 and DSC-2008. The petitioners have challenged the selection process of DSC-1996 on various grounds, as stated supra at para 4. A perusal of the G.Os and Memos issued by the Government from time to time on the issue indicates that candidates from DSC-2008 were considered under specific circumstances. In the case of DSC-2008, the consideration appears to have been based on a change in the pattern of selection to the posts of SGTs, as well as modifications in the selection criteria for D.Ed. and B.Ed. candidates, and the same was also challenged before a Court of law. In the case of DSC-2008, the consideration appears to have been based on a change in the pattern of selection to the posts of SGTs, as well as modifications in the selection criteria for D.Ed. and B.Ed. candidates, and the same was also challenged before a Court of law. As noted from the Government Memo dated 23.06.2022, which was issued for consideration of DSC-1998, candidates appear to have been made pursuant to a request from the Commissioner of School Education, seeking absorption of eligible DSC-1998 candidates for appointment as Cluster Resource Persons in the vacancies, Academic Instructors in KGBV Schools, as Guest Lecturers in A.P.Model Schools, and as teachers in the DEO pool for deployment in mapped schools. It is stated that the petitioners have also discharged their services as Vidya Volunteers up to 2010. 8. This Court is not inclined to adjudicate upon the contentions of the petitioners raised on the selection process of DSC-1996, having regard to the fact that it has been 30 years since the notification has been issued, it does not appear from the record if the petitioners made any such challenge at any point of time. Therefore, an omnibus direction cannot be issued at this time to consider the petitioners' case for appointment as teachers. However, having regard to the decision of the Government in 2022 to consider the candidates of DSC-1998 for being appointed as Cluster Resource Persons in the vacancies, Academic instructors in KGBV schools, guest lecturers in A.P.Model Schools, and as teachers in the DEO pool for deployment in mapped schools against the existing vacancies, this Court is of the view that the petitioners herein, who are within the zone of criterion such as age, be granted liberty to make a representation to the respondents to consider them for appointment as teachers on contract basis on payment of minimum time scale, subject to their age of superannuation. 9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners herein, to make representations individually to the respondents to consider their case for appointment as teachers on contract basis, applying minimum time scale in any of the Government Schools, Institutions. Upon filing of such an application(s), the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in each of the cases, in accordance with law within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. Upon filing of such an application(s), the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in each of the cases, in accordance with law within three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.