Telangana High Court

A.Ramudu vs The District Educational Officer on 15 March, 2023

Bench: K. Sarath

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

            WRIT PETITION No.30525 of 2022

ORDER:

This Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

"....to issue a Writ, Order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings Rc.No.13104/B4/B1/2008 dated 07.09.2018 issued by the 1st respondent though petitioner is more meritorious candidates vide Proceeding Dated; 22.06.2022, it is clear from the letter from the letter No.56/MRC./2022 dated 23.06.2022 like who got less marks 33, 36, 36.5 whereas the petitioner secured 37.50 despite the orders of this Court in W.P.No.2056/2018 purely non-application of mind and assessing the merit of the petitioner and not considering his case for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers in DSC-2008 of agency as per his marks and rank and merit under S.T. category, though the Government has allowed his revision petition by G.O.Ms.No.34, SW dated 21.02.2014 despite the directions to the District Collector to take further action and making correspondence among the respondents vide Prc.Dt.05.08.2015 and Proc.RC No.38/RC1/2024 dated 12.11.2016...."

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

2. Heard Sri Prathap Narayan Sanghi, Learned

Senior Counsel for Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi,

appearing for the petitioner and the learned

Governments Pleader for Services-I, appearing for

respondentNos.1 to 6.

3. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

submits that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe

community and local of Warangal Scheduled Area and

fully eligible and qualified for appointment to the post

of Secondary Grade Teacher. The petitioner applied for

the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in

pursuance to the notification issued by the respondent

No.3 in DSC-2008 and he has been issued Hall Ticket

No.21200107286 and secured 37.50 marks with

district rank of 9786 and the cut off mark is 32.50

(General), and therefore the petitioner is within the

zone of consideration for appointment to the SGT.

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner

further submits that out of 179 posts of SGT teachers

were notified in DSC-2008. At the time of selection

process the Tribal Organization viz., Thudem Debba

found that some candidates with bogus Scheduled

Tribe Caste certificates have also applied by depriving

the genuine candidates and also requested to verify the

genuineness of the said certificates as it is against

G.O.Ms.No.3 SW/TW Department dated 10.01.2000

and some of them have approached the High Court

vide W.P.No.15563 of 2010.

5. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that after hearing the Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.34, Social Welfare Department, dated

21.02.2014 upholding their local ST certificates by

setting aside of the District Collector order in

cancelling the local ST candidate certificates issued by

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

the Tahsildar in respect of seven candidates are set

aside and upholding their local ST certificate as

'genuine' wherein the petitioner is one among them of

7, who stands at Sl.No.4.

6. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

that three candidates above the petitioner were

appointed in the three vacancies which were kept in

abeyance viz.; G.Vijeyender, B.Yelulal and A.Suresh

respectively though the petitioner is also within the

zone of consideration as per his marks and rank since

his certificate of local S.T is upheld by the Government

vide G.O.Ms.No.34, Social Welfare Department, Dated

21.02.2014, his case is not being considered which is

illegal and unjust.

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that despite the caste certificate of the

petitioner is genuine and the same was upheld by the

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

Government and internal correspondence among the

respondents, the respondents were not considered the

case of the petitioner. Recently the respondents have

issued appointment orders of DSC 2008 erstwhile

Warangal District Agency list on 26.02.2022 wherein

the candidates who got less marks than the petitioner

were included at Sl.No.4, 5 and 6 like Banothu Ravi

(HT 2120017541), secured 36.50 with Rank No.

10114. Banothu Venkanna (HT No.2120012318)

secured 36 marks, with Rank No.10422 and Azmeera

Rajanna (HT No.2120016029) secured 33 marks with

Rank No.11480, whereas the petitioner has secured

37.5 marks with Rank No. 9786 and therefore the

petitioner is agitating his right to be appointed as per

his merit

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further

submits that despite the above factual position the 1st

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

respondent issued impugned proceedings while

appointing less meritorious candidates than the

petitioner on 23.06.2022 and requested to allow the

writ petition.

9. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I

basing on the counter submits that the contention of

the writ petitioner that one Banoth Ravi, Banoth

Venkanna and Azmeera Rajanna, who secured 36.50

marks, 36 marks and 33 marks respectively, who

secured got lesser marks than the petitioner, were

appointed as SGT but failed to implead them as party

respondents. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in catena

judgments, held that not impleading the effected

parties is bad in law and courts cannot pass orders

against them in the absence of them and the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

10. The Learned Government Pleader further

submits that there are 179 Posts of SGT were notified

in DSC- 2008 in Agency Area in which 98 posts are

under control of DEO Agency area, and the remaining

81 posts of SGT are under the control of the Project

Officer, ITDA. Though the selections were held the list

is kept in abeyance for want of genuinity of agency

area. One V.Gopinath and five others and one

L.Ramesh and seven others filed Writ Petition

Nos.34980 of 2017 and 1530 of 2017 respectively and

this Court passed common order on 27.12.2021

directing the respondents therein to consider the cases

of the petitioners for appointment to the post of SGT

with all consequential benefits by duly taking into

account the report of the District Collector.

Accordingly, as per the Government Memo

No.5551/Ser./II/A2/2022 dated 31.05.2022 has

accorded permission to the Director of School

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

Education, Hyderabad to implement the common order

passed by this Court so as to avoid further legal

complications.

11. The Learned Government Pleader further submits

that earlier the petitioner approached this court by

filing W.P.No.2056 of 2018 and this court in I.A.No.1 of

2018 directed the 1st respondent therein to consider

the application of the petitioner for appointment of the

petitioner to the post of SGT as per the proceedings

dated 12.11.2015 of the respondent that the

application of the petitioner was examined and

rejected on the ground of non-availability of SGT post

and the unfilled posts of SGTs of DSC-2008 had been

carried forward to TRT 2017 and there no clear

vacancy is available and requested to dismiss the writ

petition.

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

12. After hearing both sides this Court and on

perusing the records, this Court is of the considered

view that the case of the petitioner was rejected in

Proceeding dated 07.09.2018 that petitioner does not

come under zone of consideration for issue of posting

orders as Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in

Scheduled Area due to non-availability of the post and

as per the his merit as on the date of passing

impugned orders.

13. The specific plea of the petitioner is that, the

respondents have appointed the candidates who got

less marks than the petitioner viz., Banoth Ravi (HT

No.2120017541), secured 36.50 Marks with Rank

No.10114; Banothu Venkanna (HT No.2120012318),

secured 36 marks with Rank No.10422 and Azmeera

Rajanna (HT No.2120016020), secured 33 marks, with

Rank No.11480, whereas the petitioner secured 37.5

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

marks with Rank No.9786. Basing on the complaint

made by some Tribal Associations, initially the case of

the petitioner and others were kept in abeyance,

thereafter the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.34,

Social Welfare Department, dated 21.02.2014,

considering the caste certificate of the petitioner as

genuine by setting aside the District Collector's order

in cancelling the local S.T. certificates issued by the

Tahsildar in respect of seven candidates. The

respondents in their counter without given any reply

about the contention raised by the petitioner with

regard to selection of less meritorious candidates than

the petitioner, stated that without impleading the

effected parties writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

On the other hand the respondents in their counter

stating that basing on the common order passed by

this court in W.P.Nos.34980 of 2017 and 1530 of 2017

on 27.12.2021 issued posting orders therein in

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

compliance of the order of this court and in view of the

same, there are no vacancies available to appoint the

petitioner as SGT.

14. The operative portion of the common orders of

this Court passed in W.P.Nos.34980 of 2017 and 1530

of 2017 on 27.12.2021, is as follows:

"This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for respective parties, is of the considered view that when the petitioners were coming within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of SGT in pursuance of DSC-2008, some of the unsuccessful candidates made a complaint against the petitioners that the Scheduled Tribe certificates held by them are not genuine, and because of that complaint, the cases of the petitioners were not considered. However, after conducting a detailed enquiry on the said complaint, the District Collector has submitted a report on 17.08.2017 holding that the Scheduled Tribe certificates of the petitioners are found to be genuine and also the District Collector has recommended the cases of the petitioners to be considered for appointment to the post of SGT. Therefore, the respondents cannot deny appointment to the petitioners on the ground that there are no vacancies.

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

Further, since the respondents have issued appointment orders in favour of similarly situated persons vide Proceedings dated 26.07.2016 and the cases of the petitioner stand on the same footing, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of SGT with all consequential benefits by duly taking into account of the report of the District Collector dated 17.06.2017 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time, preferably within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order".

15. In view of the above directions this Court in the

above Writ Petitions, the respondents have to pass

orders in accordance with law, but not given direction

to forgo merit and issue appointment orders to the

petitioners therein. The respondents without taking

into account of the same issued appointment orders to

the less meritorious candidates than the petitioner.

The respondents cannot deny appointment to the

petitioner on the ground that the respondents have

issued appointment orders in favour of similarly

SK,J W.P.No.30525 of 2022

situated persons vide Proceedings dated 26.07.2016