Telangana High Court
Hanmanth Ashok vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 25 August, 2021
Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy
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:
JUDGMENT: (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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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:
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)
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
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
(1995) 3 SCC 486
(2010) 12 SCC 576
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
