Kondala Rao Menda vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4174 AP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &
                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR


                       WRIT APPEAL No.17 of 2021

                  (Hybrid Hearing Through video conferencing)

Kondala Rao Menda, S/o Ramaswamy,
Aged about 39 years, R/o Kaki Bangarupalem,
Hall Ticket No.18082010000011,
Mahadevapuram Post, Kandukur Mandal,
Prakasam District and others.

                                                          ..Appellants


                                      Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
School Education Department,
Secretariat, Velagapudi,
Amaravati, Guntur District and others.
                                                            ...Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : Ms. Kavitha Gottipati

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, GP for Addl. Advocate General

ORAL JUDGMENT Dt:22.10.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal is preferred against an order dated 30.11.2020

passed by the learned single Judge dismissing W.P.No.15486 of 2019 filed

by the appellants.

2. The issue brought before the learned single Judge was concerning

the selection to the post of Principal (Model School) pursuant to

notification No.768/TRC-1/2018-1, dated 26.10.2018.

                                          2                          HCJ & CPK,J
                                                               W.A.No.17 of 2021

3. Vide G.O.Ms.No.68, School Education (Exams) Department, dated

26.10.2018, the Government of Andhra Pradesh prescribed the Rules

known as "Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) for the posts of Principals,

Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs), Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs),

Physical Education Teachers (PETs), Craft, Art and Music Teachers

Scheme of Selection Rules, 2018". Basing on the said rules, the

notification dated 26.10.2018 was issued notifying 77 posts for selection

of Principals.

4. The writ petitioners had applied for the post of Principal, for which

the qualification is prescribed in Clause 4(2)(i) A & B of the aforesaid G.O.

They have been found not eligible for selection on the ground that they

did not meet the experience criteria and they were not drawing the

prescribed scale of pay as provided under Clause 4(2)(i) B (b) inasmuch

as the provision requires that the persons holding Group 'B' posts/the post

of PGTs (or) Lecturers in the recognized senior secondary

schools/equivalent institutions dealing with English Medium in the pay

scale Rs.31460-84970 and with a minimum service of 5 years from the

date of notification issued.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners did not have experience of five years in

the requisite post as on the date of notification. Thus, the learned single

Judge dismissed the writ petition having found that the petitioners lack

necessary qualification with required experience.

6. Assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge, Ms. Kavitha

Gottipati, learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, argues that

as a matter of fact, the writ petitioners are having better qualifications or

higher qualifications than required under the notification and therefore, 3 HCJ & CPK,J W.A.No.17 of 2021

their candidature should have been accepted and they ought to have been

appointed in the post of Principals.

7. Mr. Syed Khader Masthan, learned Government Pleader appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 3, submits that the order of the learned single

Judge does not warrant any interference.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, we are

not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants for the reason that G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 26.10.2018 clearly

prescribes the experience to be gained in a particular level of schools and

not higher or lower schools. If persons having experience in the higher

grade schools are selected then all those candidates, who were having

some or the other higher qualification, ought to have been considered. If

a particular provision is modified or interpreted in a different way, it

requires level playing field to all such candidates who have the same

qualification, which the Courts would like to accept at a later stage. Even

otherwise provisions in the G.O. cannot be added or modified or diluted.

9. In our considered view, the learned single Judge has not

committed any such illegality warranting interference in this intra court

appeal.

10. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                         C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

                                                                           Nn