Telangana Residential ... vs Anantha Shankar And 8 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 3152 Tel

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                  AND
         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY


            WRIT APPEAL Nos.114, 52 & 117 of 2020

COMMON JUDGMENT:        (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)




     Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were heard together and are being

decided by a common order.

     The facts of W.A.No.117 of 2020 are reproduced as

under:

     The present W.A.No.117 of 2020 is arising out of order

dated 29.04.2019 passed in W.P.No.5634 of 2019 by the

learned Single Judge.

     The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was

preferred by the appellants claiming appointment to the post

of Post-graduate Teachers and it was stated in the writ

petition   that   persons,      who        are      not      holding         B.Ed.,

qualification, have been appointed by the respondents therein

and the qualification possessed by them i.e., Telugu Pandit

Training (TPT) course is not equivalent to B.Ed., degree and it

is not recognized by National Council for Teacher Education

(NCET).

The matter was heard by the learned Single Judge and

during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

petitioners before the learned Single Judge made a statement

that the matter be referred to NCET to declare whether Telugu

Pandit Training course is equivalent to B.Ed., or not. On the

request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

learned Single Judge has passed the following order:

"Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that as per the Rules, B.Ed or equivalent qualification is prescribed and the State Government cannot decide whether Telugu Pandit Training Course is equivalent to B.Ed or not, as it is for NCTE to declare whether Telugu Pandit Training Course is equivalent to B.Ed or not. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that let the issue be referred to NCTE so as to examine whether Telugu Pandit Training Course is equivalent to that of B.Ed and, after NCTE adjudicates the issue, let appropriate action be initiated based upon the recommendations of the NCTE.

The suggestions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are also agreed upon by the learned Standing Counsel and the learned Standing Counsel also contended that let NCTE examine the issue whether Telugu Pandit Training Course is equivalent to B.Ed or not.

In view of the above rival submissions made by learned counsel for respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the NCTE examines the issue whether Telugu Pandit Training Course is equivalent to B.Ed or not, and submits its report to the respondents. Basing upon such adjudication and the report of NCTE, the respondents would act accordingly. If NCTE determines that Telugu Pandit Training Course is not equivalent to B.Ed., appropriate necessary action be initiated by the respondents by deleting such of those candidates who are selected with Telugu Pandit Training Certificate, from the selection notification, and to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of Post Graduate Teachers. This whole exercise shall be undertaken by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs."

In the considered opinion of this Court, once a

representation was made by the learned counsel for the

petitioners to refer the matter to NCET, the learned Single

Judge was justified in referring the matter to NCET to form an

opinion and to give a finding whether the Telugu Pandit

Training course is equivalent to B.Ed., or not and therefore,

this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order

passed by the learned Single Judge.

At this state, learned counsel for the appellants has

argued before this Court that the concession made by the

counsel, who argued the matter before the learned Single

Judge, was against law and no such concession could have

been made in the matter.

In the considered opinion of this Court, such a ground

cannot be raised in an appeal but can be raised by filing a

review petition. Therefore, this Court does not find any

reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned

Single Judge.

The writ appeals i.e., W.A.Nos.114 and 117 of 2020 filed

by the writ petitioners are dismissed with liberty to file a

review petition, if so advised, and the writ appeal i.e.,

W.A.No.52 of 2019 filed by the State i.e., Telangana

Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board,

Hyderabad, is disposed of.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

__________________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

______________________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

01.11.2021 ES