Telangana High Court
Thati Gangadas vs S.Rajeshwar on 14 June, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL No.686 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) Aggrieved by the interim order, dated 02.05.2024, passed in W.P.No.12410 of 2024 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that all the appellants are working as Secondary Grade Teachers (for short, 'SGT'). All the appellants have passed Teacher Eligibility Test (for short, 'T.E.T.') and they are fully eligible and qualified to be promoted as School Assistants. The grievance of the appellants is that the official respondents have prepared the seniority list of all the SGTs, who are eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistant, and in the said list, the official respondents have included the names of ineligible candidates also i.e. who did not possess T.E.T. qualification. Aggrieved by the said action of the official respondents, the appellants have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26915 of 2023 and a 2 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024 learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 27.09.2023, was pleased to grant interim order in favour of the appellants by directing the official respondents to effect promotions to the post of School Assistant, strictly in accordance with National Council for Teacher Education (for short, 'NCTE') Regulations.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that when the said order is subsisting, the contesting respondents, who have not acquired T.E.T. qualification, approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.No.12410 of 2024 claiming exemption from acquiring T.E.T. qualification on the ground that they were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 i.e. before issuance of notification by NCTE, and that their cases should also be considered for promotion to the post of School Assistant. The learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased to pass the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, directing the official respondents to consider the cases of the contesting respondents also for promotion to the post of School Assistant, without insisting for passing T.E.T., contrary to the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26915 of 2023, dated 27.09.2023.
3 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024
5. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 23.12.2015, wherein, exemption was granted to such of those persons who were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 from passing T.E.T. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge is aware of the interim order, dated 27.09.2023, passed in favour of the appellants by another learned Single Judge of this Court and though the learned Single Judge has referred and extracted the said interim order, dated 27.09.2023, in the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, the learned Single Judge, without hearing the appellants, had diluted the interim order, dated 27.09.2023, passed in W.P.No.26915 of 2023.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that when two Writ Petitions are filed i.e. one by the appellants seeking that T.E.T. qualification should be insisted while effecting promotion to the post of School Assistant and the other by the contesting respondents claiming that promotion should be effected to them without insisting for T.E.T. qualification, and when two rival claims are made, the learned Single Judge ought to have clubbed both the Writ Petitions, 4 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024 hear the same on merits and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that NCTE has issued a notification on 23.08.2010, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 23(1) of The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, wherein minimum qualification required for appointment as Teacher for Classes I to VIII were prescribed and as per the said minimum qualification, one must pass T.E.T. and such of those who did not acquire T.E.T. qualification were given five years time to acquire the said qualification and in spite of granting five years time to the contesting respondents, they did not choose to clear T.E.T. Learned counsel further contended that the subject issue was also considered by the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal No.313 of 2022 and batch, dated 02.06.2023, wherein the Madras High Court has held that the persons, who could not pass T.E.T. can continue as Secondary Grade Teachers, but, however, their cases cannot be considered for further promotion until they acquire the said qualification, and the matter was carried to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing S.L.P.(Civil).No.45649 of 2023 and the Honourable Supreme 5 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024 Court vide order, dated 20.11.2023, declined to suspend the order passed by the Madras High Court, however, listed the matter along with other identical case.
8. Learned counsel further contended that if at all any exemption has to be granted, it has to be granted only by the Central Government but not by the State Government. Therefore, mere issuance of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 23.12.2015, would not entitle the contesting respondents to seek exemption from clearing T.E.T. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, passed in W.P.No.12410 of 2024 by the learned Single Judge and direct the learned Single Judge to club both the cases i.e. W.P.No.12410 of 2024 and W.P.No.26915 of 2023, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents had contended that all the contesting respondents were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 i.e. before issuance of the notification by NCTE. Therefore, in respect of the persons, who were appointed prior to issuance of notification by NCTE, the State has taken a decision to exempt such persons from passing T.E.T. vide G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 23.12.2015 and 6 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024 therefore, the official respondents cannot insist that the contesting respondents should pass T.E.T. The learned Single Judge has rightly considered the case of the contesting respondents and granted interim order in their favour and rightly directed the official respondents to consider the cases of the contesting respondents for promotion to the post of School Assistant, without insisting for passing T.E.T.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents had further contended that the issue raised in the present case is already adjudicated by the Allahabad High Court in W.A.No.2879 of 2024, dated 19.03.2024, wherein the Allahabad High Court has categorically held that persons who were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 i.e. date of notification issued by the NCTE, are exempted from passing T.E.T. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and came to a conclusion that the contesting respondents are eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistant, without passing T.E.T. Learned counsel further contended that the official respondents never informed the contesting respondents that they should pass T.E.T. As the contesting respondents are all 7 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024 appointed prior to 23.08.2010, the official respondents cannot insist that the contesting respondents should pass T.E.T. Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the considered view that the learned Single Judge ought to have clubbed both the cases i.e. W.P.No.12410 of 2024 and W.P.No.26915 of 2023, as the appellants as well as the contesting respondents are claiming contrary reliefs. For promotion to the post of School Assistant, the appellants are insisting for passing T.E.T., whereas the contesting respondents are contending that their cases should be considered for promotion without insisting for passing T.E.T., by way of exemption. The learned Single Judge having extracted the order, dated 27.09.2023, passed in W.P.No.26915 of 2023, ought to have given an opportunity to the appellants, who were the writ petitioners in W.P.No.26915 of 2023. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, passed in W.P.No.12410 of 2024 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside, as admittedly, the appellants were not 8 AKS,J & LNA,J W.A.No.686 of 2024 heard while passing the impugned order in favour of the contesting respondents. A request is made to the learned Single Judge to club both the cases i.e. W.P.No.12410 of 2024 and W.P.No.26915 of 2023 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court.
12. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 14.06.2024.
MD