K. Bhaskara Swamy vs State Of Telangana
2022 Latest Caselaw 210 Tel

 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                        AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                     W.A.Nos. 445, 447 and 448 of 2021

Common Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present appeals arise out of common order dated 07.04.2021

passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.18996, 18895 and 18794 of

2019.

2.      Mr. D.Balakishan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the

Telangana State Public Service Commission has informed this Court that

Writ Appeal Nos.146, 147, 148 and 149 of 2021, arising out of the same

common order, have already been dismissed by this Court vide Common

Judgment dated 25-08-2021.

3.      Relevant portion of the order passed in the Writ Appeal is

reproduced as under:

          "11.         The contention of the petitioners is that the
          teaching experience they possess in equivalent post or in other
          designations such as part time lecturer/guest lecturer/contract
          lecturer ought to be counted, as they have rendered services on
          par with regular lecturers. On that count, it is submitted that an
          erroneous interpretation of the expression 'teaching experience' is
          being ascribed by the respondents to the Notification No.29 of

2017.

12. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope of interpreting the notification in the manner sought to be advanced on behalf of the petitioners. The academic qualification prescribes that a candidate should possess a Masters Degree to become eligible as a PGT, apart from B.Ed or equivalent degree with the teaching methodology

in the concerned subject. As regards teaching experience, the notification prescribes that such an experience should be as PGT/JL. There is no ambiguity in the notification, nor has any basis been laid necessitating interpretation of the expression 'teaching experience'. The employer is the best person not only to prescribe the qualifications, but also to interpret the nature of the qualification required for a particular post. In exercise of the powers of judicial review the Courts cannot be expected to interfere and give its own interpretation to the prescribed qualifications. That is the prerogative of the management alone.

In view of the above observations, the writ appeals are held to be devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed with no order as to costs."

4. In the light of the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be

passed in the present Writ Appeals. The Common Judgment

dated 25.08.2021 delivered in Writ Appeal Nos.146, 147, 148 and 149 of

2021 shall be applicable mutandis mutasis to the present Writ Appeals also.

5. Another important aspect of the case is that a Review Petition

viz., I.A.No.2 of 2021 was also preferred and the same has also been

dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2022. In view of the same, no further

orders are required to be passed in the present Writ Appeals.

6. Writ Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

dismissed.

_______________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

_______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 25.01.2022 lur