Telangana High Court
Anaganti Bhavani And 6 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 9 Others on 1 November, 2021
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, A.Rajasheker Reddy
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
