N.Sanjeeva Reddy vs The District Educational Officer
2024 Latest Caselaw 2664 Tel

Telangana High Court

N.Sanjeeva Reddy vs The District Educational Officer on 11 July, 2024

    THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI

                   W.P(TR).NO. 3477 of 2017

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the

action of the respondents in not considering their claim for

appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers pursuant

to DSC-2001 notification in terms of the judgment of the

Tribunal in O.A.No.546 of 2002 & batch, as illegal, arbitrary,

unjust and unconstitutional and consequently to hold that the

petitioners are entitled to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers

and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ

petition are that the petitioners were qualified for the post of

Secondary Grade Teachers and have accordingly applied and

participated in the written examination pursuant to DSC

Notification 2001 and were also qualified in the same. It is

submitted that the petitioners were not considered for

appointment as there was a dispute with regard to the local and

non-local status and reservation for local and non-local

candidates. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed

O.A.No.647/2002 before the Tribunal and a batch of O.As., were

TMD,J

decided by the Tribunal in the year 2002 directing the

respondents to re-cast the selection list and appoint the

teachers before issuing the appointment orders to the

candidates selected in DSC-2002. It is submitted that out of

nine applicants who filed O.A.No.647/2002, seven have been

given appointments except for the petitioners herein and it is

submitted that some of the applicants in the batch of O.As.,

which was disposed of by the Tribunal, had also approached the

High Court and the High Court has dismissed the said writ

petition as reported in 2003 (6) ALT 439, dated 06.03.2003.

Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

the Government ought to have considered the candidature of

the petitioners herein and ought to have issued the appointment

letters to the petitioner also.

3. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents submitted that, in compliance with the directions

of the Tribunal, they have re-cast the selection list and since the

petitioners did not come under the selection zone, they could

not be considered for appointment. It is submitted that the

petitioners have agitated before the Tribunal after lapse of

TMD,J

nearly thirteen years and therefore, the writ petition is not

maintainable.

4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the

material on record, this Court finds that though the petitioners

were successful before the Tribunal in O.A.No.647/2002, they

failed to approach the authorities within a reasonable and

justifiable time after the writ petition filed by some of the

candidates for further relief has been dismissed by the High

Court in the year 2003. The writ petition was disposed of in the

year 2003, whereas O.A. was filed in the year 2015. Therefore, it

cannot be said that the petitioners have been vigilant in

pursuing the case. Since the respondents clearly stated that the

petitioners did not come within the zone of selection, this Court

does not find any merit in this writ petition at this stage.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

6. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ

petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 11.07.2024 bak