Telangana High Court

G. Joseph vs The State Of Telangana 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 Nos.263 and 297 of 2021


BETWEEN

G. Joseph and another.


                                                   ... 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 Mr. P. Giri Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. D. Balakishan Rao For TSPSC

The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy)

The writ appeals are filed assailing the order dated 07.04.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.19040 0f 2019 and batch

including WP.No.19653 of 2019 and WP.No.19873 of 2019.

2. WP.No.19653 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner, being

aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 of rejecting his

candidature for the post of Principal (School) in various REIS under

Notification No.29/2107 dated 02.06.2017 by declining to consider his

'administrative experience prior to acquiring B.Ed. in 2007' as a Head

Master, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for setting aside

the Web Note dated 28.08.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 for

general recruitment and consequently, direct the respondents to allow

the petitioner to participate in the interview for selection to the post of

Principal, by considering his administrative experience acquired before

doing the B.Ed. course.

3. WP.No.19873 of 2019 was filed by the petitioner for not

considering the teaching experience of 5 years and 4 years of

administrative experience as a Principal for the post of Principal

(School) in various REIS under Notification No.29/2017 dated

02.06.2017 issued by the respondent No.2 and for setting aside the

rejection Memo. No.500/Principal REIS/2016 dated 18.07.2019 issued

by the respondent No.2 and also setting aside the Web Note dated

28.08.2019 issued by the respondent No.2 for general recruitment and

consequently, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to

participate in the interview and select him for the post of Principal.

4. 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 said 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

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 qualifications, a candidate 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 is also

desirable.

5. The recruitment process comprised of two stages i.e.

Preliminary (screening test) and Mains examination (both, objective

type), followed by interview. All the petitioners appeared for the test

conducted by the respondents pursuant to the above notification.

The petitioners were short listed for further process of selection. But at

the time of verification of their documents i.e. prior to the stage of

conducting the interview, the candidature of the petitioners were

rejected citing the reason, 'administrative experience prior to acquiring

B.Ed' and 'teaching experience not considered' respectively.

6. The petitioner in WP.No.19653 of 2019 pleaded that pursuant to

the notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017, he had applied for the

post of Principal and his name was placed in the rejected list at Sl.No.7

and the reason shown for his rejection was 'administrative experience

prior to acquiring B.Ed. in 2007'. It is the case of the petitioner that he

fulfills the educational qualifications, having completed B.Sc. (B.Zc.) in

April, 1996 and M.Sc. (Marine Bio Technology) in July 1999 and B.Ed,

with concerned methodology in Biological Sciences in April 2007.

He completed M.Sc. (Botany) in November 2011. He acquired B.Ed.

degree from Osmania University in April 2007. He had been working as

a Contract Junior Lecturer (Botany), Government Junior College,

Vangoor, Nagarkurnool District from 30.07.2008 till date and earlier to

that, he had worked as a Head Master in Government Recognized Sri

Sharada Vidya Nilayam, Kondamallepally, Nalgonda District from

18.01.2001 to 24.04.2005. Further, it is his case that a reading of

Condition No.4(b) of the notification gives an understating that the a

candidate should have the educational qualification as shown in

Condition No.4(a) and teaching experience as mentioned in Condition

No.4(b). No where has it been specifically stated in Condition No.4(b)

that administrative experience must be coupled with B.Ed.

As such, rejection of the petitioner's case on the ground of lack of

administrative experience before acquiring B.Ed., is not tenable.

7. The petitioner in WP.No.19873 of 2019 has pleaded that he had

worked in Pudemi Primary School as a Principal from 24.05.2007 to

23.04.2009; worked as an English Teacher for Class VI to XI from

24.04.2009 to 22.04.2010; worked as a Degree College Lecturer from

24.04.2010 to 11.06.2012 and worked as a Vice Principal from

12.06.2012 to 30.11.2016 in Brilliant Grammar High School. It is his

case that pursuant to Notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017,

he was selected in the Prelims. Later, the respondents released the

admitted list for Interview and his name was shown in the rejected list

at Sl.No.754 citing that he possesses only one year of teaching

experience, his Degree College experience has not been included in

the teaching experience and his administrative experience as Vice

Principal and Primary School experience have also not been

considered. It is his further case that he has a total teaching

experience of 5 years and administrative experience of 4 years in a

Government recognized High School and he fulfills the criteria of

experience in teaching. Condition No.4(b) of the notification does not

specifically lay down that teaching experience should only be from

High School or Junior College. The condition does not indicate that

one, who has teaching experience in a Degree College, is not qualified

because Degree College teachers are more qualified than a High

School or Junior College teachers. He further stated that he has

administrative experience as he worked as a Vice-Principal for more

than three years. Thus, the petitioner has stated that rejection of his

candidature on the ground of having only one year teaching

experience and degree college experience is untenable.

8. In the common counter filed by the respondent, the following

averments were made opposing the respective claims of the

petitioners regarding their teaching experience and administrative

experience:

"32. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner Sri Maheshwar Gurram, with Hall Ticket No.172900009, who filed WP.No.19653 of 2019 has acquired the qualification M.Sc. Marine Bio-Tech, A.U., 1999, First Class, M.Sc., Botany, DR. BRAOU, 2011 and B.Ed-Bio-Science, Telugu, OU, 2007, submitted Teaching Experience-2008 to 2017 & Administrative Experience - 2001 to 2005.

I respectfully submit that, the petitioner has acquired B.Ed qualification during the year 2007 and therefore the Administrative experience for the period 2001 to 2005 gained by the petitioner earlier to B.Ed is not considered. Hence the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the

Notification, even though having sufficient Teaching experience."

9. It appears that a separate counter was not filed in WP.No.19873

of 2019 and no counter, is a part of the Court record. However, it is

not disputed that the petitioner in the said writ petition does not

possess qualification for satisfying the eligibility criteria laid down in

Condition No.4(b) of the notification, as, admittedly, he has teaching

experience as Degree College lecturer but no teaching experience as a

PGT lecturer.

10. 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 the High School, are not entitled to hold the

post of a Principal (Schools) in REIS. Since the petitioner does not

possess sufficient teaching experience after Post Graduation, he is not

entitled to hold the post of a Principal.

11. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions

holding that, admittedly, none of the petitioners gained administrative

experience as Head Master of a High School or as a Principal of Junior

College and made the following observations:

8. The eligibility criteria is two fold. Academic qualifications and experience. Again experience is two fold. Teaching and Administrative experience. Issue in these writ petitions is on administrative experience. Notification requires minimum of 8 years teaching experience. Out of this, three years has to be administrative experience. It means while involving in teaching, person must also gain administrative experience. Two important aspects are, teaching experience has to be as Post Graduate Teacher in a High School or as a Lecturer in a Junior college. Further, administrative experience has to be as a Head Master of a High School or as 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 experience gained in any other manner. There is no ambiguity in the experience prescribed in the notification. That being the intendment of the employer, Court cannot assume the experience gained by petitioners in various capacities, mentioned above, same as experience stipulated in the recruitment notification. A candidate may have acquired greater skill in administering the affairs of an educational institution by working as Vice Principal/Administrative Principal etc., but when it comes to recruitment, the candidate has to fit into the eligibility criteria specified by the employer. 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. In the absence of a challenge to recruitment notification and/ or the clause, Court has to go by the intendment of the employer.

12. Mr. P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner in

WP.No.19653 of 2019, submitted that the petitioner has the requisite

experience as a Head Master and 10 years of teaching experience in a

Government Junior College. Condition No.4(b) of the notification does

not specifically prescribe that administrative experience should be

coupled with B.Ed.

13. Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner in

WP.No.19873 of 2019, submitted that the petitioner has worked as an

English Teacher, Lecturer in Degree College and Vice-Principal in a

High School and thus, has teaching and administrative experience,

which was arbitrarily not considered by the respondents.

14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended

that since teaching experience and administrative experience of the

petitioners was earlier to their acquiring the B.Ed degree, they did not

fulfill the eligibility criteria.

15. 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.

16. The educational qualifications and experience of the petitioners

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 19873/19 G. Joseph M.A., Principal from Teaching
B.Ed., 24.05.2007 to experience as
23.04.2009, Teacher Degree Lecturer
from 24.04.2009 to is not
22.04.2010, Lecturer considered.

from 24.04.2010 to Teaching
11.06.2012, Vice experience with
Principal from P.G. only be
12.06.2012 to considered i.e.,
30.11.2016 as Vice-Principal
and Principal of
Primary School
not considered.
2 19653/19 G. Maheshwar M.Sc. Head Master from Administrative
(Marine 2001-05 in School, as Experience prior
Biology); Contract Lecturer to acquiring
M.Sc. from 2008 to till date B.Ed. and
(Biology) contract service
; B.Ed., cannot be
considered.

17. It is settled law that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere

with the technical qualifications prescribed by the employer.

A Full Bench of this Court in W.P.No.40157 of 2017 and batch

(MALLESH KORUKORU v. STATE OF TELANGANA) 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)

18. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for

the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is

of the opinion that petitioners do not satisfy the condition of

possessing teaching experience and administrative experience as

prescribed in para (b) of the notification. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner in WP.No.19653 of 2019 did not possess teaching

experience of 8 years and administrative experience of 3 years,

prior to his acquiring B.Ed degree and the petitioner in WP.No.19873

of 2019 did not have teaching experience as a PG Lecturer. He had

teaching experience only as a Degree College Lecturer, which is not

the qualification prescribed under Condition No.4(b) of the notification.

19. 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 prescribed by the employer. A Writ Court has a

limited jurisdiction in such technical matters. 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. Moreover,

there is no challenge laid by the petitioners to the recruitment

notification. They have not made out any case warranting interference

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Any interpretation of the

eligibility criteria prescribed by the respondents would amount to this

Court interfering in the decision making process of the administrative