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 Nos.146, 147, 148 and 149 of 2021
BETWEEN
Jaharunnisa Begum and others.
... APPELLANTS
AND
Telangana State Public Service Commission,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. D. Balakishan Rao
For TSPSC
The Court made the following:
2
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy)
The writ appeals arise out of the common order dated
07.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.18794 of
2019 and batch.
2. The appellant in WA.No.146 of 2021 is the petitioner in
WP.No.19085 of 2019; the appellant in WA.No147 of 2021 is the
petitioner in WP.No.19784 of 2019; the appellant in WA.No.148 of
2021 is the petitioner in WP.No.19074 of 2019 and the appellant in
WA.No.149 of 2021 of 2019 is the petitioner in WP.No.19089 of 2010.
3. The writ petitions have been filed challenging individual
impugned memos separately issued to each of the petitioners rejecting
their case for being appointed as Principal (School) in Residential
Educational Institutions Societies, allegedly, by wrongly interpreting
the scope of 'teaching' experience as prescribed in Notification No.29
of 2017 dated 02.06.2017, issued for selection on the above post,
as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India and for consequential direction to the
respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners as Principals on
the basis of merit, with all attendant benefits.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
(a) Notification No.29 of 2017 dated 02.06.2017 was issued by
the respondents inviting online applications from qualified candidates
for filling up 304 posts of 'Principal (School) in Residential Educational
Institutions Societies'. As per the notification, the candidate must
possess a Second Class Master's Degree or its equivalent from an
institution recognized by the UGC, in the relevant school subjects for
which the Post Graduate Teachers (PGT) are eligible with not less than
3
50% of marks in aggregate or its equivalent or must possess a B.Ed.
or equivalent degree from an institution recognized by the NCTE with
the Teaching Methodology in the concerned subject. In addition to the
above educational qualification, one must also possess a total teaching
experience of not less than 8 years including not less than 5 years as
PGT/Junior Lecturer in any Government/Aided/Government recognized
High School/Junior College and 3 years of administrative experience as
Head Master/Principal of Government/Aided/Government recognized
High School/Junior College. It was further prescribed that knowledge
of computer applications would also be desirable.
(b) The recruitment process comprised of two stages i.e.
Preliminary (screening test) and Mains examination (both, objective
type), followed by an interview. All the petitioners appeared for the
test conducted by the respondents pursuant to the above notification.
They were short listed for further process of selection. But at the time
of verification of documents i.e. prior to conducting interview, the case
of the petitioners was rejected citing the reason, 'part time Junior
Lecturer experience not considered'.
(c) The petitioners pleaded that they had enclosed service
certificates issued by the institutions where they had worked.
The respondents rejected the cases of over 900 candidates with a
single line order. Some of the aggrieved candidates filed writ petitions
in WP.No.5672 of 2019 and batch and vide order dated 10.04.2019,
this Court allowed the said petitions directing the respondents to
receive individual representations from all the rejected candidates
along with experience certificates and upon receipt of such
representations, to examine each individual case on its own merits and
pass individual speaking orders.
4
(d) The petitioners further stated that the respondent accepted
their administrative experience but did not consider their teaching
experience. It is urged that they had submitted teaching experience
certificates countersigned by the DIEO of the respective districts.
But once again, the respondents have rejected their cases under
impugned memos, by misinterpreting the scope of the word
'experience' as prescribed in the impugned notification dated
02.06.2017.
(e) The educational qualifications, experience of petitioners and
the reasons for rejection are as follows:
Sl. W.P.No. Name of the Educatio Experience Reasons for
No. petitioner nal rejection
Qualificat
ions
1 19085/19 Jaharunnisa M.Sc., Teacher from 2010 to Leaving 2 years
Begum B.Ed 2016; as lecturer teaching
from 2016-2018, experience from
having 3 years Adm. 2011-2013 after
Exp.. PG part-time
lecturer
experience not
considered.
2 19784/19 A.Renuka Devi M.A., Admn. Exp. : Part time
B.Ed 11/2009 to June Teaching
2013; teaching exp. experience not
Part-time Jr. Lecturer considered.
from 7/2013 to
4/2017
3 19074/19 Ramula M.A., Jr.Lecturer from Part time
Umadevi B.Ed 2011-17; Teaching
HM/Principal : 2008- experience not
2011 considered.
4 19089/19 T.Tiruna Hari M.Sc., Lecturer from 2008 to Excluding one
Babu B.Ed, 2009; 2012 till date; year as Lecturer
3 years 1 month rest of the
admn. Exp. service was on
part time basis
thus not eligible.
(f) Thus, as noted above, all the petitioners shown at Sl.No.1 to
4 rendered services as part time lecturers. They contend that though
the service certificates mention their experience as part time lecturer,
as a matter of fact, they were working as full time lecturers. According
to the petitioners, there are two types of faculties in the Gurukulam
i.e. Regular Junior Lecturer and Part Time Lecturer, but the word
'part time' is mentioned only to show that they are not regular
5
employees of the Gurukulam and they are not entitled for
regularization. On paper, the Gurukulam is taking the services of part
time lecturers in the vacant posts of regular lecturers, but they are
actually rendering full time service, on par with regular lecturers.
They have worked in Gurukulam colleges for which the present
selection is being undertaken and as such, they have perfect
knowledge and experience in the field and are fully eligible and entitled
for selection.
(g) It was stated on behalf of the petitioners that in the absence
of any prescription of experience as regular lecturer, but not as
contract lecturer or guest lecturer, non-counting of the teaching
experience as contract lecturer or guest lecturer, prima facie is not
valid to deprive the candidates from participating in the selection.
Without any rationale and basis, the respondents have rejected the
case of the petitioners and barred them from undergoing further
selection process of interview on the ground that teaching experience
as part time junior lecturers cannot be considered. The petitioners
stated that very object of open competition is to select the best
candidate from the aspirants who are otherwise qualified and eligible.
Therefore, the action of the respondent in interpreting the words
'teaching experience' in some other way, is only to exclude part time
experience of the petitioners in teaching and the same defeats the
very object of open competition and is in violation of Articles 14, 16
and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(h) In the counter of the respondent, it was asserted that
teaching experience gained by the petitioners as part time/guest
lecturers, cannot be considered as teaching experience in terms of the
recruitment notification, since outside lecturers are entrusted with the
work of teaching in the colleges only when there is a necessity to cope
6
up with the schedule of the academic programme i.e. completion of
syllabus within the time schedule prescribed in the academic year.
Hence, the experience gained by the petitioners for having worked on
a part time basis/guest lecturer cannot be considered as teaching
experience. As the Government does not treat part time
lecturers/guest lecturers as lecturers appointed on a regular basis/on
contract basis, it is, therefore, not specifically prescribed in the
notification as to in what capacity and in what manner such an
experience is required to be gained by the candidates.
(i) It was further stated that the part time lecturers will work on
an hourly basis and their remuneration is also paid on an hourly basis,
as per G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 08.01.2008. Therefore, the said experience
cannot be considered as yearly experience. Moreover, part time
lecturer/lecturer can work in more than one institution in the same
period due to which their teaching experience cannot be treated on par
with regular service. The candidature of the petitioners was rejected
on the ground of not fulfilling the terms and conditions of the
notification as they fall short of the teaching experience and due to the
fact that their teaching experience on a part time basis cannot be
considered in terms of G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 08.01.2008.
7. By the impugned common order, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petitions with the following observations:
"9. Recruitment notification does not provide acceptance of
teaching experience gained in equivalent post or with any other
designation such as Part-time Lecturer/Guest Lecturer/as
Contract Lecturer as valid teaching experience. The
respondents assert that teaching experience has to be while
working on a regular basis and not as a part-
time/guest/contract lecturer. Learned Additional Advocate
General further asserted that a part-time/guest/contract
lecturer cannot be treated on par with regular Lecturer. When
the recruitment notification uses, the term 'Lecturer', perforce
7
it implies a regular Lecturer, but not a part-time/
guest/contract Lecturer. Thus, claim of petitioners that they
were undertaking same teaching work similar to Junior Lecturer
has no relevance.
10. From the table appended to paragraph-5 above, it is
apparent that petitioners do not have the teaching experience
as Post Graduate Teacher in a High School and/or as Junior
Lecturer in a Junior College. These are the only categories of
posts in which the candidate should secure teaching
experience.
11. What eligibility criteria is required to hold a post is for
the employer to decide. In exercise of power of judicial review
writ Court cannot mandate the employer to prescribe a
particular qualification/ eligibility criteria or hold particular
eligibility of a candidate same as prescribed in the recruitment
notification. When the notification and the intendment of the
employer are clear, Court cannot resort to process of inference
to hold otherwise.
...
16. In these writ petitions, petitioners are not challenging the recruitment notification. Admittedly, petitioners do not possess the required teaching experience specified in the recruitment notification. Having regard to the eligibility criteria required, there is no error in the decision of the Public Service Commission rejecting the candidature of petitioners for recruitment as Principals in the schools run by the residential societies."
8. Heard Mr. Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. D. Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the respondent.
9. 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
8
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.
10. As per the above prescribed qualifications, a candidate is required to possess a Masters Degree (Post Graduation) or its equivalent from an institution recognized by the UGC in subjects for which Post Graduate Teachers are eligible. Further, the candidate is required to possess B.Ed. or equivalent degree from an institution recognized by the NCTE with the teaching methodology in the concerned subject. Additionally, the teaching experience as described in para B of the educational qualifications is required to be satisfied, namely, possessing 5 years experience as PGT/JL in any Government/aided school or junior college and 3 years experience as Head Master/Principal.
11. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners had worked as part time lecturers/guest lecturers/contract lecturers. The petitioners sought to rely on the certificates issued by their respective colleges showing that they had worked as full time lecturers. Part time/Guest 9 Lecturer is appointed on account of some contingencies. A part time lecturer cannot be permitted to plead that he must be treated on par with a regular lecturer. Having teaching experience as a regularly appointed lecturer is distinct and different from having teaching experience as a part time lecturer. May be the services of the petitioners were utilized for teaching the subjects which have been taught by the regular lecturers but that does not change the status of the petitioners from part time lecturers to regular lecturers. The mode of appointment of a part time/guest lecturers is different; the service conditions are different and as such, they cannot be treated on par with regular lecturers.
12. It is settled law that the 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) had 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.10
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)
14. The contention of the petitioners is that the teaching experience they possess in equivalent post or in other designations such as part time lecturer/guest lecturer/contract lecturer ought to be counted, as they have rendered services on par with regular lecturers. On that count, it is submitted that an erroneous interpretation of the expression 'teaching experience' is being ascribed by the respondents to the Notification No.29 of 2017.
15. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope of interpreting the notification in the manner sought to be advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The academic qualification prescribes that a candidate should possess a Masters Degree to become eligible as a PGT, apart from B.Ed or equivalent degree with the teaching methodology in the concerned subject. As regards teaching experience, the notification prescribes that such an experience should 11 be as PGT/JL. There is no ambiguity in the notification, nor has any basis been laid necessitating interpretation of the expression 'teaching experience'. The employer is the best person not only to prescribe the qualifications, but also to interpret the nature of the qualification required for a particular post. In exercise of the powers of judicial review the Courts cannot be expected to interfere and give its own interpretation to the prescribed qualifications. That is the prerogative of the management alone.
In view of the above observations, the writ appeals are held to be devoid of merit and are 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