HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.260 of 2021
BETWEEN
Hanmanth Ashok.
... APPELLANTS
AND
The State of Telangana,
Rep. by its Chief Secretary,
General Administration (SER-A) Department,
Secretariat, Hyderabad and another.
...RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. S. Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Advocate General Mr. D. Balakishan Rao For TSPSC The Court made the following:
2JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy) The writ appeal is filed assailing dismissal of WP.No.19863 of 2019 vide common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 07.04.2021 in WP.No.10170 0f 2019 and batch. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the Notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 issued by the 2nd Respondent in so far imposing condition No.4B experience seeking total teaching experience of not less than 8 years including not less than 5 year as PGT/JL in any Government/Aided/Government recognized High School/ Junior College and 3 years of Administrative experience as Head Master/Principal of Government/Government recognized High School/Junior College as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and declare condition No.4B of Notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 as illegal and ultravires and set aside the same and also set aside the Rejection Memo No.500/Principal REIS/2016 dated 07.08.2019 issued by Respondent No.2 and also set aside the Web Note dated 25.08.2019 issued by the 2nd Respondent under Notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 issued for General Recruitment of Principal (School) in various REIS issued by TSPSC - Respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to allow the petitioner to interview and also select the petitioner if he is eligible for the post of Principal (School) in various REIS considering his experience and pass ..."
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he has completed M.A. (Arts) and B.Ed with concerned methodology; he has total teaching experience of 6 years, worked as a PGT teacher and taught Social and English from 02.06.2007 to 02.06.2010 in Gurukula Vidyapeeth High School; worked as School Assistant and taught Social Studies for class 3 VIII, IX and X from June 2010 to July 2012 in a High School; worked in Engineering College from 2016 to 2017. He further stated that the said experience fulfills Part-1 condition of experience in the notification which requires 5 years teaching experience as PGT/JL in any Government/Aided/Government recognized High School/Junior College. He has teaching experience as a Lecturer in Degree College and merely because he worked in a Degree College and therefore, his candidature cannot be rejected. The action of the respondents in rejecting his experience in Degree College is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.
4. The petitioner further stated that his candidature has been wrongly rejected for want of experience in a Junior College. He has 4 years administrative experience as a Head Master in a Government recognized High School, but the second respondent has not counted his teaching experience from 2007 to 2010 and 2016 to 2017. The petitioner further stated that he has 3 years PGT teaching experience from 2007 to 2010, experience as School Assistant from 2010 to 2012, which itself accounts to 5 years of teaching experience. Additionally, he has one year teaching experience in an Engineering College from 2016 to 2017. His experience as a Head Master for 4 years ought to have been treated as teaching experience and the respondent No.2 ought to have included his teaching experience in 8 years experience. The teaching experience in an Engineering College is obviously at a higher level than the experience as a Junior Lecturer, which has been mentioned in the notification. The said experience gives him more mileage and his teaching experience would be advantageous to the students. Higher qualifications and experience in a higher level institution would always be in the interest of the teaching faculty. The notification prescribing experience from 4 Schools/Junior Colleges and avoiding Engineering and Degree Colleges is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, for the reason the candidates, who have teaching experience in Degree Colleges and Engineering Colleges, have lost an employment opportunity as a Principal under the subject notification. Hence, Condition No.4(b) of the notification be declared as ultravires.
5. In the common counter filed by the respondents, the following averments have been made opposing the claim of the petitioner regarding his teaching and administrative experience:
"25. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner Sri Hanmanth Ashok, with Hall Ticket No.1729001682, who filed WP.No.19863 of 2019 has acquired the qualification MA- English from OU in 2015 and B.Ed-(Social and English) in 2013 from OU and Teaching Experience from 2007 - 2012 as Teacher in a High School & Administrative Experience from June 2012 - April 2016 as Head Master and as Assistant Professor from 2016-2017.
It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner has acquired Post Graduation qualification during the year 2015 and therefore the experience gained by the petitioner earlier to Post Graduation is not considered. Hence the Teaching experience (2007-2012) prior to PG(2015) is not considered. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.20052 of 2019 delivered orders as "the University College of Education is a Degree standing imparting education for awarding of Bachelor of Education. Therefore, the teaching experience of the petitioner cannot be treated as requisite reaching experience as required by the recruitment notification." Hence, B.Ed & Engineering college experience (2016-2017) not considered. Hence the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the Notification, even though the petitioner is having sufficient Administrative experience."
6. It was asserted by the respondents that the candidates who do not possess 5 years teaching experience after acquiring Post Graduation i.e. as PGT in High School, are not entitled to hold the post 5 of Principal (Schools) in REIS. Since the petitioner does not possess sufficient teaching experience after doing his Post Graduation, he is not eligible to hold the post of a Principal.
7. In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge, while dealing with issue No.2 i.e. "Whether stipulating experience as a Post Graduation Teacher in a High School or a Junior Lecturer in a Junior College only as eligibility criteria is illegal?', dismissed the writ petition with the following observations:
"29. Experience prescribed is two fold. Teaching and Administrative experience. Notification requires minimum of 8 years teaching experience. Important aspect of teaching experience is one must be a Post Graduate Teacher in a High School or a Lecturer in a Junior college. The teaching experience clause is emphatic in insisting that the candidate must be eligible to become a Post Graduate Teacher even if he is working as a Junior Lecturer. Thus, mere becoming a Junior Lecturer is also not sufficient but one must be eligible to become a Post Graduate Teacher. It means he must also have same methodology in B.Ed course of study in sync with his specialization in Post Graduation. A teacher has to teach subject of his specialization and training. By studying Post Graduation in a subject or two, person acquires specialization in that subject(s). But that is not enough to teach high school students. To be able to teach the high school students he must acquire the skill to teach the subject. He acquires such skill by studying B.Ed., with methodology in the same subject(s) he studied in Post Graduation. Thus, with Post Graduation and B.Ed., with same methodology, person can be able to acquire a command to teach the students on his subject of specialization and gains good experience. Though, a Lecturer in a Junior College teaches intermediate students, but the employer wants only such Lecturers who have acquired skill to teach by opting to same methodology in B.Ed. Course. A Principal is required to perform administrative responsibilities and also required to teach. Thus, even though a person earlier worked as Junior Lecturer, he will have to teach higher secondary class students. Therefore, employer insists that he must have the training to teach this class of students.6
30. Followed by educational qualifications and teaching experience a candidate must have minimum of three years administrative experience as a Head Master of a High School or as Principal of a Junior College. It means while involving in teaching, person must also gain administrative experience by working as Head Master of a High School or as a Principal of a Junior College. The notification does not recognize acquiring administrative experience in any other manner, be it as administrative Principal/ In-charge Principal/Vice- Principal/Administrative In-charge/ District Educational Coordinator, etc. It has not made a provision to accept equivalent qualification.
31. The post of Principal is in a school imparting education to higher secondary school students. He is required to lead team of teachers to impart quality education to children coming from under privileged and/or economically backward classes of the society and make them stand up in the society. Therefore, he must have keen understanding of that age group students, must have good knowledge of the subject of his specialization and good experience as an administrator. A mixture of all this helps in managing the affairs of the school and motivate teachers and students to give better output. The intendment to achieve this objective is discernible while prescribing the eligibility criteria. It appears, the eligibility criteria is tailor made to suit the needs of High school education. Teaching and administering higher secondary school students pose different challenges requiring honing up special skill as compared to dealing with students prosecuting Graduation. At the level of graduation, a student is more matured and focused in his education and career. The Degree Lecturers only need to acquire knowledge on his subject of specialization. Thus, their exposure to teaching graduate students and lack of teaching experience at the High School / Junior College level may prove to be counterproductive and they may not fit the bill.
32. Having regard to requirements of a Post, it is permissible to prescribe qualifications, tailor made to suit the job profile of the post and in a given situation higher qualification can be a disqualification. A candidate may have acquired greater skill in teaching in a Degree college and / or in administering the affairs of an educational institution by working in various capacities as Vice Principal/In-charge Principal etc, but when it comes to recruitment, the candidate has to fit into the eligibility 7 criteria specified by the employer. There is no ambiguity in the eligibility criteria specified in the notification. The intendment of the employer is clear and specific. The employer, in his wisdom, wants only such candidates who can fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is discernible from sub-paragraph (4), the purpose and object of prescribing the relevant eligibility criteria i.e., good academic record, long teaching experience, skill to teach high school students and good administrative experience makes a person complete man to fit into the assignment effortlessly and lead his team.
33. It is the prerogative of the employer to stipulate conditions of eligibility. Scope of judicial review is very limited on prescribing eligibility criteria. The Court cannot step into the shoes of employer and review what eligibility criteria is intended or best suited to a post. Court cannot sit as Appellate Authority to make an assessment of what ought to have been stipulated by employer. Court cannot substitute the eligibility criteria by assessing the requirements and claims."
8. Insofar as issue No.3 (Having participated in the selections in pursuant to the recruitment notification, can the petitioners challenge the very recruitment, merely because they are not selected?) is concerned, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners having responded to the recruitment notification and being aware that they were ineligible as per the criteria stipulated in the notification, ought to have availed of the legal remedy soon after the notification was issued. Having participated in the recruitment process with eyes wide open on the eligibility criteria, the petitioners are estopped from challenging the recruitment notification.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2, having allowed the petitioner to write the preliminary examination, cannot reject his candidature for want of experience in a Junior College; that the respondent No.2 has applied a pick and choose method in selecting the candidates; that the respondent No.2 has erroneously not counted the teaching experience of the petitioner from 8 2007 to 2012 and 2016 to 2017 and also the experience as Head Master for 4 years and teaching experience in the Engineering College; the respondent No.2 had knowledge that several candidates including the petitioner have worked in Engineering Colleges, having PGT experience without Post Graduation Degree and produced various experience certificates; that the respondent No.2 had verified the experience certificates and on being satisfied, permitted the petitioner to appear for the preliminary examination but rejected his candidature for interview. Lastly, it has been urged that the respondent No.2 has illegally rejected the experience which the petitioner had prior to his Post Graduation and did not consider his B.Ed and Engineering College experience, though there is no mention in the notification that the experience should be before Post Graduation.
10. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the respondent No.2 by imposing Condition No.4(b) relating to experience in the notification, has curtailed the rights of candidates who have worked in Engineering Colleges, thereby, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The candidates who got the opportunity to serve in Degree Colleges and Engineering Colleges, have lost an employment opportunity as a Principal. Thus, the action of the respondent No.2 is ultravires.
11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent No.2 has laid down the eligibility criteria after undertaking a detailed study through experts, with regard to teaching and administrative experience; that laying down of eligibility criteria is within the prerogative of the respondent 9 No.2/employer. He contended that it is settled law that a candidate, who has participated in the selection process, cannot be permitted to approach the Court challenging the selection process by applying the principal of estoppel.
12. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
13. The educational qualifications prescribed in the notification dated 02.06.2017, is extracted below:
4) Educational Qualifications:
Applicants must possess the qualifications from a recognized University as detailed below or equivalent thereto and experience as specified in the relevant Bye Laws/ Service Regulations indented by the Residential Educational Institutions Societies as on the Date of Notification.
Post Name of Educational Qualifications &
code the Post Experience
1 Principal (School) in
Telangana A. Academic Qualifications:
Residential
Educational i) A second class Master's Degree
Institutions Society (M.A./M.Sc/M.Com) or its equivalent from
an institution recognized by the UGC, in
Principal (School) in the relevant (Annexure-A) school subjects 2 Telangana Social for which the Post Graduate Teachers Welfare Residential (PGT) are eligible with not less than 50% Educational of marks in aggregate or its equivalent. Institutions Society.
ii) In case of SC/ST/BC/Differently abled
candidates, the minimum marks shall be
Principal (School)
3 45%.
in Mahatama
Jothiba Phule
iii) A B.Ed or equivalent degree from an
Telangana
institution recognized by the NCTE with the
Backward Classes
Teaching Methodology in the concerned
Welfare Residential
subject.
Educational
Institutions
B. Experience:
Society.
iv) A total teaching experience of not less
4 Principal (School) than (8) years including not less than (5)
in Telangana years as PGT/JL in any Government/Aided/
Minorities Welfare Government recognized High School/ Junior
Residential College and (3) years of administrative
Educational experience as Head Master/ principal of
Institutions Society Government/Aided/ Government recognized
High School/ Junior college
5 Principal (School) in
Telangana Tribal C. Desirable
Welfare Residential
Educational Knowledge of Computer Applications.
Institutions Society.
14. The educational qualifications and experience of the petitioner and reasons for rejection are as under:10
Sl. W.P.No. Name of the Educatio Experience Reasons for No. petitioner nal rejection Qualificat ions 1 19863/19 Hanmanth M.A. Worked as Post Petitioner Ashok (Arts) Graduation Teacher= secured Post 2015, 2.6.2007 to Graduation in B.Ed, 2.6.2010; School 2015. Teaching Assistant= 6/2010 to Experience prior 7/2012; to 2015 can not Eng.College:2016- be counted.
2017; Head Master: B.Ed and
6/2012 to 4/2016 Eng.College
experience
cannot be
considered.
15. It is settled law that Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the technical qualifications prescribed by the authorities. A Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch (MALLESH KORUKORU v. STATE OF TELANGANA) has rendered a judgment on 18.09.2020, in this context and held as under:
"63. From the above presidential case law on all the four aspects it is, thus, safe to conclude that:
(a) & (b) xxx
(c) It is for the employer to prescribe procedure of selection for direct recruitment to public employment;
(d) xxx
e) The scope of judicial review in matters of
prescribing qualifications, procedure of selection, and method of selection is very limited. The Writ Court cannot act as Court of appeal, and cannot determine what qualifications can be prescribed to hold a post; it cannot prescribe the procedure of selection to make regular recruitment. Only when there is patent illegality in the selection procedure/process would the writ Court interfere.
92. ...... it is for the employer to prescribe the qualifications required to hold a post. It is equally for the employer to prescribe the procedure for selection and to recruit the eligible and suitable persons for a post. Depending on the job description, the employer may stipulate educational qualifications, age, and experience. Posts in the higher echelons, specialized posts, posts in special establishments may require specialized qualifications, experience and only by a particular category of persons. .............. Thus, depending on the requirements of a job, appropriate qualifications/eligibility criteria may be prescribed. It is the prerogative of the employer. Judicial review cannot be stretched to oversee what qualifications, eligibility criteria, and mode of selection should be prescribed by the employer."
(emphasis added) 11
16. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has got a superior teaching experience than what has been prescribed under the impugned notification, that the teaching experience of the petitioner in a Engineering College is at higher level than the experience of a Junior Lecturer and the said experience gained by the petitioner should have been considered, is found to be without any merit. A candidate aspiring to the post of Principal has to satisfy not only the academic qualification prescribed under Condition No.4(a) but also teaching and administrative experience prescribed in Condition No.4(b) of the notification. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not possess teaching experience of 8 years prior to acquiring the B.Ed degree and he did not fulfill the eligibility criteria with respect to the teaching experience prescribed under Condition No.4(b) of the notification. As discussed above, the petitioner had secured Post Graduate degree in the year 2015. Thus, the experience gained by the petitioner prior to the Post Graduation degree either as a B.Ed. or his experience in Engineering College, cannot be taken into consideration. The notification was issued calling for applications for the post of Principal (School) in REIS. Imparting of education, the needs of the students and the teaching faculty and other administrative responsibilities in schools are altogether on a different footing as compared to Engineering Colleges. The respondent No.2 being the employer, has obviously prescribed the eligibility criteria to suit the requirements of a School Principal.
17. It is not for this Court to decide as to whether the petitioner, who has teaching experience in an Engineering College, should be placed at a higher pedestal than other candidates, who have teaching experience in schools and Junior Colleges. This Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 12 cannot interpret the eligibility criteria in such a manner which will have the effect of revising or modifying the eligibility criteria. A Writ Court has got limited jurisdiction in technical maters. As held in a catena of decisions, it is for the employer to prescribe the eligibility criteria and the same cannot be altered or reviewed by a Writ Court.
18. The Supreme Court in MADAN LAL v. STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR1 has held as under:
"9.....Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043] it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said 26 (1995) 3 SCC 486 PNR,J W.P.No.10170 of 2019 & Batch 39 examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner."
19. In MANISH KUMAR SHAHI v. STATE OF BIHAR2, the Supreme Court has held as under:
"16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court 1 (1995) 3 SCC 486 2 (2010) 12 SCC 576 13 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712 : (1995) 29 ATC 603] , Marripati Nagaraja v. Govt. of A.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 68] , Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal [(2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 1005] , Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam [(2009) 3 SCC 227 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 627] and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines [(2009) 5 SCC 515 : (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 57]".
20. Even in the instant case, the petitioner has participated in the selection process knowing the prescribed terms and conditions. Only when his case was rejected on the ground of not satisfying the teaching experience, did he approach this Court for relief. Following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the above pronouncements, it is held that the petitioner cannot be permitted to lay a challenge to the notification, having subjected himself to the selection process, on the principles of estoppel.
In view of the above observations, the writ appeal is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed with no order as to costs.
_____________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ __________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J August 25, 2021 DSK