Telangana High Court

K. Shyam Rao And 21 Others vs State Of Telangana And 8 Others on 14 February, 2023

Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, N.Tukaramji

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
                                         AND
               THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                  WRIT PETITION No.2675 of 2023

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)


        Heard Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Mr. A.Sanjeev Kumar, learned Special

Government Pleader attached to the Office of learned

Additional          Advocate          General         appearing       for      the

respondents.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for the

following relief:

For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing impugned G.O.Ms.No.03, School Education (Ser.II) Department, dated 23.01.2023, G.O.Ms.No.05, School Education (Ser.II) Department, dated 25.01.2023 and Telangana School Educational Service Rules for the posts of Head Masters, Grade-II (Gazetted) in Zilla

Parishad Schools in Telangana vide its and issued guidelines vide its Proceedings Rc.No.565/Trans/Ser.IV- 2/2022, dated:26.01.2023 by non-considering the promotions of the petitioners from School Assistants to Panel Grade Head Masters - Grade - II and Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) to School Assistants is an ultravires, illegal, ex-facie, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust, unfair, whims and fancies and irrational, unreasonable, unlawful, unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and against to the Catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to implement the impugned Service Rules, 2023 till disposal of the W.P.No.16255 of 2022, which are pending before learned Single Judge and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

3. From a perusal of the above, it is seen that

petitioners have questioned the constitutionality of

G.O.Ms.No.03 dated 23.01.2023, G.O.Ms.No.05 dated

25.01.2023 and the proceedings dated 26.01.2023. The

challenge has been made on the ground that the said

government orders and the proceedings were issued

without considering promotion avenues of the petitioners

from School Assistants to Panel Grade Head Masters -

Grade II and from Secondary Grade Teachers to School

Assistants.

4. Be it stated that petitioners are either School

Assistants or Secondary Grade Teachers serving in various

schools in the State of Telangana.

5. By G.O.Ms.No.03, dated 23.01.2023, issued by the

Secretary to the Government of Telangana, School

Education (Ser.II) Department, Rule 8 of the Rules for the

posts of Head Masters Grade - II (Gazetted) in Zilla

Parishad Schools in Telangana State issued in

G.O.Ms.No.10, School Education (Ser.II) Department, dated

23.01.2009 has been amended. The said amendment has

been carried out in exercise of powers conferred by

Sections 78 and 99 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982,

and under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of

India. In existing Rule 8 it was provided that for the

purpose of appointment, seniority, discharge for want of

vacancy, transfer and reappointment, the unit of

appointment would be the revenue district concerned

except Hyderabad. Following the amendment, Rule 8 now

reads as follows:

8. For the purpose of appointment, seniority, discharge for want of vacancy, transfer and reappointment the unit of appointment shall be as specified in the table.

Multi Zone-I - Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal Comprising of Kumurambheem - Asifabad, Mancherial, Peddapalli, Jayashankar-Bhupalpalli, Mulugu, Adilabad, Nirmal, Nizamabad, Jagitial, Karimnagar, Rajanna-Sircilla, Siddipet, Medak, Kamareddy, Bhadradri-Kothagudem, Khammam, Mahabubabad, Warangal Rural, Hanumakonda Districts.

Multi Zone-II - Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad Comprising of Suryapet, Nalgonda, Yadadri-Bhongir, Janagoan, Medchal-Malkajgiri, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy, Sangareddy, Vikarabad, Mahabubnagar, Narayanpet, Jogulamba-Gadwal, Wanaparthy, Nagarkurnool districts.

6. As per the amended Rule 8, for the purpose of

appointment, seniority, discharge for want of vacancy,

transfer and reappointment the unit of appointment shall

be as specified in the table. Thus, instead of revenue

district, the unit of appointment has been classified as

Multi Zone-I and Multi Zone-II, both zones comprising

different districts; the authority for Multi Zone - I being

Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal, and

the authority for Multi Zone - II being Regional Joint

Director of School Education, Hyderabad.

7. Government of Telangana in the School Education

(Ser.II) Department has also issued G.O.Ms.No.05, dated

25.01.2023, making the Telangana Teachers (Regulation of

Transfers) Rules, 2023. The above rules have been framed

in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 78 and 99 of

the Telangana Education Act, 1982, and under the proviso

to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

8. A perusal of the above rules would go to show that

the said rules have been framed to regulate transfer of

Head Masters/Head Mistresses - Grade II (Gazetted),

School Assistants/Secondary Grade Teachers and other

equivalent categories working in Government/Zilla

Parishad/MPP Schools in the State of Telangana.

9. From a careful reading of both G.O.Ms.No.03 and

G.O.Ms.No.05 we are at a loss to understand as to how the

above two government orders can be said to have put a

spanner in the promotional aspirations of the petitioners.

We had tried to understand the apprehension of the

petitioners by carefully analysing the averments made in

the writ affidavit. The only averment made in support of

the contention that the two government orders are

unconstitutional can be seen in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the

writ affidavit, which are as follows:

8. I further submit that except mutual transfers took place and not given service protection to the petitioners and the remaining all grounds i.e., spouse, widow, medical grounds, etc. were given service protection and allowed the above said guidelines for promotion from Secondary Grade Teacher to School Assistant and School Assistant to Panel Grade Head Master, Grade-II is amounts to an ex-facie, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unlawful and unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The equal protection of law cannot be denied to the petitioners and Articles 13(2) of Constitution of India has categorically stated that any legislation or any proceedings of the State or its instrumentalities cannot be denied equal right and the same has upheld by an Apex Court in a Catena of Constitutional Bench Judgments including in the case

of Kunnathat Thatunni Moopil Nair V/s. State of Kerala & Another (CB), which is reported in AIR 1961 SC 552, is squarely applicable for this case.

9. I further submit that the policy decision has taken by the State Government by the above said impugned proceedings are not valid in the eye of law and the same are amounts to unreasonable, unfair and unconstitutional and the every policy must be tested in reasonableness, but the impugned policy of the State Government, which are under challenge not valid in the eye of law and the same has stated by an Apex Court in a Catena of Judgments including in the case of Brij Mohan Lal V/s. Union of India, which is reported in (2012) 6 SCC 502 that the Larger Bench has stated in its Judgment at Para No.72 that,

"72. It is also a settled cannon of law that the Government has the authority and power to not only frame its policies, but also to change the same. The power of the Government, regarding how the policy should be shaped or implemented and what should be its scope, is very wide, subject to it and being arbitrary or unreasonable. In other words, the State may formulate or reformulate its policies to attain its obligations of governance or to achieve its objects, but the freedom so granted is subject to basic Constitutional limitations and is not so absolute in its terms that it would permit even arbitrary actions. Certain tests, whether this Court should or not interfere in the policy decisions of the State, as stated in other judgments, can be summed up as:

(I) If the policy fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional.

(II) The change in policy must be made fairly and should not give impression that it was so done arbitrarily on any ulterior intention.

(III) The policy can be faulted on grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc.

(IV) If the policy is found to be against any statute or the Constitution or runs counter to the philosophy behind these provisions.