Telangana High Court
Gudiboina Indira vs State Of Telangana on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
Writ Appeal No.152 of 2021
And
Writ Appeal No.652 of 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Both these Writ Appeals are being disposed of as
common Judgment, as the issues raised in these Writ
Appeals are one and the same.
2. Both these Writ Appeals have been filed aggrieved
by the Common Order dated 07.04.2021, passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17336 of
2019 and Writ Petition No.15754 of 2019.
3. Heard Sri Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant in Writ Appeal No. 152 of 2021, Sri S. Rahul
Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ
Appeal No. 652 of 2021, Sri D. Balakishan Rao,
Standing counsel for the first respondent and
Government Pleader for School Education Department
::2:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
for the second respondent and Sri N. Bhupal Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.
4. It has been contended by the appellants that they
are fully eligible and qualified for the post of Principal
and the respondents have issued a Notification No. 29
of 2017, dated 02-06-2017 inviting applications for the
post of Principal (School) in the Residential
Educational Institutions run by third respondent. The
appellants have responded to the said notification and
appellants have done fairly well in the selection
process. However, the grievance of the appellants is
that the respondents have rejected the cases of the
appellants on the ground that the appellants are not
having requisite experience to hold the post of
Principal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants had
contended that the educational qualifications
prescribed for the post of Principal are as follows:
::3:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
"4) Educational Qualification:
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 the Post Educational Qualifications ad
Code Experience
1 Principal (School) in Telangana A. Academic Qualifications:
Residential Educational i) A second class Master's
institutions Socity Degree (M.A./M.Sc/M.Com) or its
2 Principal (School) in Telangana equivalent from an institution
Social Welfare Residential recognized by the UGC, in the
Educational) Institutions Society relevant (Annexure - A) school
3 Principal (School) in Mahatma subject fro which the Post Graduate
Jothiba Phule Telangana Teachers (PGT) are eligible with not
Backward Classes Welfare less than 50% of marks in aggregate
Educational) Institutions Society or it equivalent.
4 Principal (School) in Telangana
Minorities Welfare Residential ii) In case of
Educational) Institutions Society SC/ST/BC/Differently abled
5 Principal (School) in Telangana candidates, the minimum marks
Tribal Welfare Residential shall be 45%
Educational) Institutions Society
iii) A B. Ed or equivalent degree
from an institution recognized by
the NCTE with the Teaching
Methodology in the concerned
subject.
B. Experience
iv) A total teaching experience
of not les than (5) yea as PFT/JL 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.
C. Desirable
Knowledge of Computer Applications
6. All the appellants are having requisite
qualifications and only issue is that the the appellants
have requisite experience as prescribed in the
::4:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
notification. However, the appellants have experience
gained prior to acquiring qualification in the relevant
field and accordingly the appellants are entitled for
consideration of their cases for appointment to the
post of Principals as they fulfilled the educational
qualifications prescribed in the notification. The
learned Single Judge without appreciating any of the
contention raised by the appellants, has rejected the
cases of the appellants and dismissed the Writ
Petitions by way of common order, dated 07-04-2021.
Challenging the same, the present Writ Appeals are
filed.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that a perusal of the qualifications notified
in the notification would make it clear that one must
have not less than eight years of teaching experience
including not less than five years as PGT/Junior
Lecturer in any Government/Aided/Government
Recognized Residential School or Junior College and
::5:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
three years of administrative experience as
Headmaster/Principal of Government/Aided/
Government Recognized Residential School or Junior
College and some of the appellants have experience in
the degree colleges, which is not included, though it is
not included specifically in the notification, higher
teaching experience acquired in the degree colleges has
to be included and it should be deemed that the
appellants do posses the requisite qualifications, as
notified by the respondents and the case of the
appellants deserves to be considered for appointment
to the post of Principal, if the appellants are coming
within the zone of consideration as per the merit.
Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ
Appeal by directing the respondents to consider the
case of the appellants for appointment to the post of
Principal as notified in the Notification, dated
02-06-2017 and also set aside the rejection orders in
respect of the appellants.
::6:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
8. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents had contended that the notification had
categorically stated that one must have requisite
qualification in the Junior College level or School level
of various types of institutions and admittedly the
appellants are not having requisite qualifications, as
notified in the notification and appellant having
participated in the selection process cannot turn
around and challenge the rejection orders. Admittedly,
the appellants are not possessing requisite
qualifications, as notified in the notification. If at all
the appellants are aggrieved by the notification, the
appellants ought to have challenged the notification
but having participated in the selection process, the
appellants cannot turn around and challenge the
rejection orders passed by the respondents stating that
they are not eligible as they do not have requisite
qualification, therefore, there are no merits and Writ
Appeals are liable to be dismissed.
::7:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
9. This Court, having considered the rival
submissions of the parties, is of the considered view
that the appellants are not having requisite
qualifications as notified in the notification and the
learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ
Petitions with the following observations:
"10. A teacher has to teach subject of his specialization and
training. By studying Post Graduation in a subject or two,
person acquires specialization in that subject(s). That is not
enough to be successful as a Teacher in a High School. To be
able to teach the students he must acquire the skill to teach the
subject. He acquires such skill by studying B.Ed., with
methodology in the same subject(s) he studied in Post
Graduation. Thus, with Post Graduation and B.Ed., with same
methodology, person can be able to acquire a command to
teach the students on his subject of specialization and gains
good experience. A Principal is required to perform
administrative responsibilities and also required to teach.
He should be a person to lead his team of teachers standing as
an example. Thus, prescribing such requirement cannot be
said as arbitrary and unconstitutional.
11. The employer, in his wisdom, wants only such candidates
who can fulfill the eligibility criteria. It is discernible from
sub- paragraph (4), the purpose and object of prescribing the
relevant eligibility criteria i.e., good academic record, long
teaching experience with in-depth knowledge on teaching
methodology and administrative experience makes a person
complete man to fit into the assignment as Principal
effortlessly and lead his team.
12. It is also apparent that the employers are very clear in
their mind on the eligibility criteria required by a candidate. It
is the prerogative of the employer to prescribe eligibility
criteria. In exercise of power of judicial review the Court
cannot trench into the discretion of the employer to determine
the qualifications required to a post, go into the validity of the
::8:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
qualifications prescribed, hold those qualifications are not
valid and substitute the qualifications, what it may think
proper. Court cannot also hold the eligibility and/or
experience gained by petitioners as equivalent/higher and
rejection of their candidature as illegal.
13. The issue of eligibility vis-à-vis experience was considered
by this Court in W.P.No.20104 of 2019. Having regard to the
experience criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification,
the Court upheld the decision of the Public Service
Commission in not subjecting the petitioner therein for further
selection process as the petitioner therein did not have
requisite teaching experience after acquiring Post Graduation
qualification even if the post of School Assistant was to be
treated as equivalent. This Court held as under:
"6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on the decision in P.Ramachandra Rao
Vs State of Karnataka [(2002) 4 SCC 578] to
contend that it is permissible to writ Court to
undertake judicial legislation by interpreting the
relevant provisions and remove the lacunae. In
fact even by extending the same principle to the
petitioner's case, his experience as School
Assistant is treated as valid, but as petitioner did
not have Post Graduation before 2008 the
primary requirement is not fulfilled by the
petitioner.
7. Therefore, the teaching experience of the
petitioner prior to 2008 cannot be treated as
requisite teaching experience as per the
recruitment notification. I therefore, do not see
any error in rejecting the candidature of
petitioner for further selection process,
warranting interference by this Court".
14. Scope of judicial review in matters touching recruitment to
public employment is considered by the Full Bench of this
Court in W.P.No. 40157 of 2017 and batch in the judgment
rendered on 18.09.2020. The opinion of Full Bench, to the
extent relevant, reads as under:
"61. Judicial review of administrative action is
core of our constitutional scheme and rule of law.
::9:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
It is all pervading and encompasses all aspects of
Executive actions where rights of individuals are
affected. However, scope of judicial review in
matters touching recruitment to public
employment is in a narrow compass. Judicial
review on such aspects is confined to, whether
any mala fide/arbitrary decision was taken to
prescribe particular qualification only to favour
a particular person(s), and/or such
qualifications, though not at all required to hold
the concerned post, but is prescribed in order to
eliminate a person(s). And if there are illegalities
in the selection process vitiating the selection. As
long as the eligibility criteria and procedure of
selection meets the mandate of Articles 14, 16
and 309 of the Constitution of India, and no
illegalities are pointed out in the selection
process, the scope of judicial review on the
qualifications prescribed to a post, and the
procedure of selection is limited one.
62. From precedent decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court on the scope of judicial review in
matters of prescribing eligibility criteria,
selection procedure and right of a candidate
seeking public employment, the following
principles can be culled out:
1. Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India
neither exclude the laying down of selective tests, nor preclude
the Government from laying down qualifications for the post in
question. Such qualifications need not be only technical, but
they can also be general qualifications relating to the
suitability of the candidate for public service as such. [ State of
Mysore v. P.Narasinga Rao1-paragraph 4].
2. The Courts should not usurp the function of
determining the appropriate method of selection, and the
relative weight to be attached to the various tests even in cases
of proven or obvious oblique motive. That would be amounting
to re-writing the rules; the courts should not undertake such
an exercise. [LilaDhar Vs State of Rajasthan2:Paragraph-9]
3. Matters relating to creation and abolition of posts,
formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing
::10:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, prescribing
additional or desirable qualifications, including any grant of
preference, criteria of selection fall within the exclusive
domain of the employer. The Court has no role either in
determining the methodology of recruitment, or in laying down
the criteria of selection. It is the employer who is best suited to
decide the requirements that a candidate must possess,
according to the needs of the employer, and the nature of
work. In the garb of judicial review, a Court cannot sit in the
chair of the appointing authority, and decide what is best for
the employer. Moreover, the Court cannot sit in appeal over
the judgment of the employer, and ordain that a particular
post be filled in a particular manner. The Court cannot lay
down the conditions of eligibility. If the language
of the advertisement and the rules are clear, the court cannot
sit in judgment over the same. In such matters, the power of
judicial review can be exercised only if it is shown that the
action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or
statutory provision, or is patently arbitrary, or is vitiated due
to mala fide. It is also not open to the Court to make
comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The
Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer
should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of
improving the efficiency of administration. [Union of India v.
Pushpa Rani 3: Paragraph-37]. [Maharashtra Public Service
Commission (supra) : Paragraph-9].
4. Since the administrative authorities have
experience in administration, the Court must respect this.
Thus, the Court should not interfere readily with
administrative decisions. The Court should not ordinarily
interfere in policy decisions, unless there is clear violation of
some constitutional or statutory provision (or the statute.).
[Dilip Kumar Garg v. State of U.P.,4: Paragraph- 15]. There
should be judicial restraint in administrative decisions. [Tata
Cellular v. Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651].
5. An enabling provision postulates a discretion
which may or may not be exercised. The Court cannot find
fault in exercising an enabling power in a particular manner. [
Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad
and others5: Paragraph-29]
6. Where an Executive action of the State is
challenged, the Court must tread with caution, and not
::11:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
overstep its limits. The interference by the Court is warranted
only when there are oblique motives, or there is miscarriage of
justice. [Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey6:
Paragraph- 21]
7. The recruitment notification merely amounts to an
invitation to the qualified candidates to apply for recruitment.
On their selection, they do not acquire indefeasible right to the
post, even if all the vacancies notified are not filled up.
[Shankarsan Dash Vs Union of India7: Paragraph- 7; Mohd.
Rashid v. Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and others8
: Paragraph-13 ].
8. In service jurisprudence, constitutional Courts should
balance the equality principle with the principle of
classification, dependent on the nexus for making the
classification; this aspect is best left to the wisdom of the
administrative authorities [State of Uttarakhand Vs
S.K.Singh9: Paragraph- 27].
9. If mode of selection is not prescribed by the rules, and
there is no other impediment in law, it is permissible for the
competent authority to lay down the norms for selection, such
as holding tests, minimum benchmarks for written test as well
as for viva voce. [Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi 10:
Paragraph- 15]. Depending on the nature of the post, it is
permissible to make selection based on performance in the
interview. [Kiran Gupta v. State of U.P.,11: Paragraph-26].
10. If classification is otherwise legal, valid and
reasonable, it is not prohibited by Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. [State of Bihar Vs. Bihar State Plus-2
Lecturer Association and others12: paragraph-14].
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
::12:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
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."
15. In paragraph-92, the Full Bench held:
"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 supplied)
16. In the cases on hand, petitioners do not have the eligibility
criteria notified by the employer.
17. Thus, there is no patent illegality in the decision of the
Public Service Commission rejecting the candidature of
petitioners for recruitment as Principals in the residential
societies.
18. Writ Petitions fail. They are accordingly dismissed.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed."
10. As the learned Single Judge has elaborately
considered the entire case laws and rightly came to a
conclusion that the appellants are not entitled for any
::13:: HCJ & AKS,J
Wa Nos.152 and 652_2021
relief and this Court is not inclined to interfere with
the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. With the above observations both the Writ
Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending
if any in these Writ Appeals, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
Date : 22.03.2022
AS/KHRM
