Telangana High Court
Shaik Arshia Sulthana vs State Of Telangana on 16 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
WRIT PETITION No.13823 of 2023
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.500/Principal REIS/2016, dated 26.02.2021, rejecting the case of the petitioner to include her name in the Provisional Selection List and not considering her claim on par with similarly situated persons in pursuance to the Notification No.29/2017, dated 02.06.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.
2) Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-TSPSC.
3) According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner has completed M.Sc. (Botony) in the year 2007 and B.Ed. in the year 2011 from Osmania University and also worked as a Junior Lecturer in Botony from June, 2007, to April, 2013 at Elite Vocational Junior College, Saroor Nagar, Hyderabad. Thereafter, she worked as Principal in Pragathi Vidyanikethan High School at Medaripet, Dandapalli Mandal, 2 PK,J wp_13823_2023 Mancherial District, from 01.06.2013 to 01.04.2017 i.e. for four academic years. While so, the second respondent has issued notification No.29/2017, dated 02.06.2017, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Principal (School) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies, prescribing the educational qualifications and experience as "A Second Class Master's Degree with not less than 50% of marks in aggregate or its equivalent and B.Ed. or its equivalent degree"
along with "total teaching experience of not less than 8 years including not less than 5 years as PGT/JL in any Government or recognized school/college and three years of administrative experience as HM/Principal of concerned College". As the petitioner is eligible for the post of Principal, she has applied for the said post, appeared for the main examination vide Hall Ticket No.1729000929 as per the schedule given by respondent No.2 and secured 130 marks out of 300 marks in written examination without normalization. Further, on 19.10.2018, the second respondent has issued web notification stating that "the candidates who have attended certificate verification for the post of Principal in Junior Colleges (Notification No.25/17) and Principals in Schools (Notification No.29/17) that they have to get
3 PK,J wp_13823_2023 their experience certificate attested by the concerned District DEO or DIEO and the same may be produced at TSPSC office within 15 days". Further, a second web notification was issued on 14.03.2019 stating that "out of 1295 candidates, the candidature of 914 has been rejected on various reasons" and calling valid objections to submit before 17.03.2019 by sending to official e mail. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted her valid objections on 24.04.2019 duly submitting experience certificates i.e. teaching experience of 5 years and administrative experience as Principal for 3 years. By considering the same, the second respondent has called the petitioner for interview on 06.09.2019 and she has successfully completed the interview and was expecting selection. But, the second respondent has passed the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that she has submitted additional documents and experience certificates, in fact, the petitioner has not submitted any additional documents or revised documents. Therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioners, while considering the cases of similarly situated persons who have also submitted experience certificates like the petitioner to the second respondent, amounts to arbitrary, 4 PK,J wp_13823_2023 discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and also against the conditions of the notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017. Learned counsel further submitted that huge irregularities and illegalities have taken place during the recruitment undertaken by the second respondent. The persons who are having sufficient qualification and secured more marks with sufficient teaching and administrative experience in accordance with Notification, have not been allowed in the further process of selection and not been selected, but few of candidates, who have not submitted experience certificates, were considered and allowed for further selection process and also issued appointment orders. Therefore, the action of the respondents in selectively allowing the similarly situated persons amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory.
4) Learned counsel has further submitted that after issuance of the web note along with candidates' rejection list dated 14.03.2019 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has submitted material facts within the stipulated period. Thereafter, few candidates have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ Petition and the same was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2019 in W.P. No.5672 of 2019 directing the respondents to 5 PK,J wp_13823_2023 consider the candidates' revised or additional documents and re-examine the 39 candidates and to consider for further process of selection. Thereafter, alleging that the respondents have entertained additional documents from some of the aspiring candidates contrary to Notification No.29/2017 and judgment in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 dated 10.04.2019, W.P. No.19232 of 2019 was filed and the same was disposed of by this Court on 21.10.2020 directing the second respondent to re-examine the experience certificates of 39 candidates, who were made eligible by the TSPSC pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in W.P. No.5672 of 2019 & batch. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2020 passed in W.P. No.19232 of 2019, Writ Appeal was filed vide W.A. No.511 of 2020 wherein vide judgment dated 12.02.2021, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 & batch. Further, the SLP Civil Diary No.63301/2021 filed by the second respondent was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.03.2021. Subsequently, a review was filed in Writ Appeal No.511 of 2020 and the same was also dismissed on 27.04.2022 and in the whole episode, neither the petitioner has filed any writ petition nor was impleaded in the writ appeal as a party. But, 6 PK,J wp_13823_2023 unknowingly she was impleaded in the SLP and in the review petition of writ appeal. Except that, the petitioner is no way concerned with the above orders and therefore the same are not binding on her. It is further submitted that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the second respondent has considered the cases of similarly situated persons viz., B. Venkataiah, S.D. Naseemunnisa Begum, B. Sandhya and Pasham Venkat Reddy, who have also submitted additional documents/revised documents like the petitioner and were selected and appointed to the post of Principal ignoring the merit of the petitioner, arbitrarily and the second respondent has not followed the theory of Equity and Parity. Therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner while considering the case of the similarly situated persons is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Kunnathat Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala 1, E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu 2, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. 1 AIR 1961 SC 552 2 (1974) 4 SCC 3 7 PK,J wp_13823_2023 International Airport Authority of India 3, State of Tamil Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa 4, D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 5, Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation Limited 6, Saktipada Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 7, and Unreported judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.429-430 of 2021 dated 18.02.2021.
5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent has contended that the second respondent has issued notification inviting applications for the post of Principals (Schools) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies in the State of Telangana to fill up 303 posts out of which 146 belong to Boys institutions and 157 vacancies belong to Girls Institutions, vide notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 with the prescribed qualification of "Second Class Master's Degree and B.Ed. with a total teaching experience of not less than 8 years including not less than 5 years as PGT/JL in any Government or Recognized Institution and three years administrative experience as Head Master/Principal of Government or Recognized High 3 (1979) 3 SCC 489 4 (2020) 19 SCC 430 5 (1983) 1 SCC 305 6 2021 SCC OnLine SC 972 7 2022 (1) S.C.T. 665 8 PK,J wp_13823_2023 School or Junior College". Further, the Commission has instructed the candidates by way of a web note that their experience certificates attested by DEO/DIEO be filed for confirmation of the genuinity of the experience, so as to enable the Commission to take a decision on the basis of DEO report as to whether the candidate's candidature has to be admitted or not. It is further submitted that the petitioner has applied to the post of PGT and submitted teaching experience certificate for the period from June, 2007 to April, 2013 as Lecturer in Junior College i.e. 6 years teaching experience but not submitted Administrative experience certificate. Therefore, her candidature was previously rejected by showing the reason 'No Administrative experience". On being challenge to the said rejection orders, this Court in W.P. No.5672 of 2019 & batch, vide common order dated 10.04.2019 while setting aside the rejection orders directed all the candidates whose cases were rejected to submit their representations by enclosing the experience certificates to the Telangana State Public Service Commission and upon such representations being received TSPSC to examine each individual case on its merits and pass individual speaking orders. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has submitted another experience certificate 9 PK,J wp_13823_2023 i.e. Administrative Experience from June, 2013, to April, 2017 (four years), as Principal in High School. Hence, she was admitted and called for interview as per the result notification dated 28.08.2019. However, the Division Bench has passed judgment in Writ Appeal No.511 of 2020 dated 12.02.2021 holding that permitting the rejected candidates to submit new/additional documents and experience certificates is not valid. Based on the same, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for selection and rejected since she has submitted the revised experience certificates. To that effect, a speaking Order was communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 26.02.2021. As regards the allegation of considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates with H.T.Nos.1729000439, 1729000903, 1729001036 and 1729001270 is concerned, it is contended that the names of the candidates with H.T.Nos.1729000439, 1729001036 and 1729001270 were in final admission from the beginning since they have produced requisite Teaching & Administrative experience certificates as prescribed in the Notification for the post of Principal (Schools). Therefore, there is no discriminatory on the part of the respondents and the 10 PK,J wp_13823_2023 respondents are justified in passing the impugned order. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record.
7) For better adjudication of the matter, relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.511 of 2022 dated 12.02.2021 is extracted hereunder:
"24. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the understanding of 2nd respondent-Commission, of the order in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch, as permitting the candidates to file fresh / new experience certificates or additional documents in addition to the documents that were submitted along with their online applications through OTR process, is misconceived.
25. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the action of the 2nd respondent in considering the new/additional documents submitted by 39 candidates cannot be held to be valid and also the direction of the learned single Judge in directing the 2nd respondent-Commission to re-examine the experience certificates of 39 candidates in view of the objection raised by the petitioners, also cannot be sustained.
26. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed; direction of the learned single Judge to re-examine the new experience certificates of the 39 candidates furnished subsequently after the submission of application through online OTR process, is hereby set aside; the action of the 2nd respondent-Commission in permitting the rejected candidates to submit new / additional documents and experience
11 PK,J wp_13823_2023 certificates cannot be held to be valid; and the action of the 2nd respondent-Commission considering such new / additional documents in respect of 39 candidates is also liable to be rejected. The 2nd respondent-Commission is hereby directed to consider only the documents uploaded by each of these 39 candidates along with the application submitted through online process, if not considered earlier, on its merit and pass individual speaking order and communicate the same to the candidate as directed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2019 in W.P. No.5672 of 2019 and batch."
(emphasis added) In pursuance to the above directions of the Division Bench, the second respondent has considered and rejected the case of the petitioner, vide impugned order, on the ground that she has not uploaded administrative experience certificate along with the application submitted through online process. Therefore, the impugned order is inconsonance with the directions of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.511 of 2022, referred supra.
8) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the impugned order on the ground of discrimination contending that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected while the cases of similarly situated persons viz., B. Venkataiah, S.D. Naseemunnisa Begum, B. Sandhya and Pasham Venkat Reddy, was considered and also alleged that huge illegalities and irregularities have taken place in the entire selection process. In this regard, it is the 12 PK,J wp_13823_2023 specific assertion of the second respondent in the counter that out of the four names mentioned by the petitioner, names of three persons are in the final admission from the beginning since they have produced requisite Teaching & Administrative experience certificates as prescribed in the Notification. Therefore, the contention urged by the petitioner that the cases of the similarly situated candidates were considered by the respondents while the case of the petitioner was rejected, has no foce. Further, even assuming for a moment, for the sake of arguments, that some of the candidates were selected illegally and irregularly, the petitioner is estopped from seeking the said concession on the ground of law of Negative equality.
9) While dealing with a similar situation in Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under:
"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia. In view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or 8 (2010) 11 SCC 455
13 PK,J wp_13823_2023 multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.
12. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief."
(emphasis added)
10) In view of the above settled principle of law, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim negative equality and seek relief under the umbrella of Article 14 of the Constitution of India alleging discrimination. In this scenario, this Court has not gone into the original record produced by the learned Standing Counsel, pursuant to the orders of this Court.
11) For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
14 PK,J wp_13823_2023 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date : 16.07.2024.
sur Issue C.C. by 22.07.2024