State Of Telangana vs Deshaboina Veerababu
2021 Latest Caselaw 733 Tel

Items No.17-23

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


     WRIT APPEAL Nos.210 of 2020, 938 of 2019, 105 of 2020,
          160 of 2020, 2 of 2021, 10 of 2021 and 24 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)

1.    W.A.Nos.210, 160 of 2020 and 2, 10, 24 of 2021 have been

filed by the State, and W.A.Nos.938 of 2019 and 105 of 2020 have

been filed by the private respondents, being aggrieved by the

judgment dated 16.09.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge

allowing W.P.No.3019 of 2018 filed by the respondents No.1 to 5/writ

petitioners in W.A.No.210 of 2020.

2. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has turned

down the plea taken by the appellant/State and held that the National

Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (for short 'NCTE Act')

framed by the Central Government would prevail over the Telangana

Tribal Welfare Residential Education Institutions Society Recruitment

Rules, 1999, for recruitment of Physical Education Teachers (PETs)

in residential schools. The Court has held that the respondents No.6

to 11 herein (impleaded as respondents No.2 to 7 in the writ petition)

had rightly taken note of the NCTE regulations and applied them to

the subject recruitment. While disposing of the writ petition, the

learned Single Judge observed that the impugned notification dated

14.04.2017 issued by the State refers to 616 posts of PETs that have

been notified for being filled up by the Telangana State Public Service

Commission (TSPSC) and since several persons including the private

respondents have appeared in the examination that was conducted in

May, 2017, pursuant to the aforesaid notification, it would cause

untold hardship to them if the said process is set at naught and the said

posts are not permitted to be filled up. As a result, proceeding to

mould the relief as sought for by the writ petitioners, the following

directions were issued:-

"67. I therefore propose to mould the relief sought by the petitioners in the interest of justice in the following manner:

(a) the respondent Nos.1 to 7 are directed to identify the PET posts which would be required for (i) Classes I to VIII or Classes V to VIII and (ii) Classes IX and X in respondent Nos.2, 4 to 7 institutions;

(b) respondent Nos.1 to 7 shall prescribe a higher cut off mark for Graduates who are eligible as per the NCTE Regulations referred to above only for the posts of PETs earmarked for Classes IX and X;

(c) respondent Nos.1 to 7 shall prescribe a lower cut off mark for non-Graduates like the petitioners who are also eligible as per the NCTE Regulations referred to above for the posts of PETs earmarked for Classes I to VIII or Classes V to VIII;

(d) respondent Nos.1 to 7 shall consider on the basis of the cut off marks so fixed, qualified Graduate candidates only for the posts of PETs earmarked for Classes IX and X;

(e) respondent Nos.1 to 7 shall consider on the basis of the cut off marks so fixed, qualified non-Graduate candidates like the petitioners only for the posts of PETs earmarked for Classes I to VIII or Classes V to VIII;

(f) the TSPSC shall publish a fresh list of selected candidates as per the above norms within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

(g) respondent Nos.1 to 7 shall then take further steps to fill up the said posts with such qualified candidates."

3. It was further directed that till the aforesaid exercise is

completed, status quo shall be maintained in all respects. Aggrieved

by the aforesaid judgment, the State and the private respondents have

filed the respective appeals.

4. In the course of submissions, learned Additional Advocate

General states, on instructions, that the State may be permitted to

comply with the directions issued in the impugned judgment, calling

upon it to identify and segregate the PET posts that would be required

to be filled up by those teachers, who would be imparting physical

education to students studying in classes up to Class VIII and to those

teachers, who would be imparting physical education to students

studying in Classes IX and X in the respondents No.6, 8 to

11/Institutions. He submits that after the said segregation is done, the

eligibility of the candidates for the subject posts shall be considered

strictly in terms of the NCTE Regulations and on merit. It is

submitted that once the appellant/State has agreed to separate the

cadre of the teachers, who have applied for the PET posts into the

posts that will be earmarked for PETs upto Class VIII and posts that

will be earmarked for PETs for Class IX and X, then the remaining

directions contained in clauses (b) to (f) of Para 67 of the impugned

judgment will go and a fresh list of selected candidates shall be

published by the State by segregating the cadre as stated above, within

two weeks.

5. Mr. S. Rahul Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents No.1

to 5/writ petitioners and Mr.D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellants in W.A.Nos.938 of 2019 and 105 of 2020

are agreeable to the aforesaid submission.

6. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the present appeals

are disposed of in terms of the submission made by learned Additional

Advocate General, as recorded above along with the pending

applications, if any. The appellant/State is directed to complete the

entire exercise and publish the list of selected candidates in the two

cadres at the earliest, preferably within two weeks from today.

_________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 08.03.2021 Lur/vs