Telangana High Court

Shaik Arshia Sulthana vs State Of Telangana on 16 July, 2024

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

              WRIT PETITION No.13823 of 2023

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the

2nd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Memo

No.500/Principal REIS/2016, dated 26.02.2021, rejecting the case

of the petitioner to include her name in the Provisional Selection

List and not considering her claim on par with similarly situated

persons in pursuance to the Notification No.29/2017, dated

02.06.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

2) Heard Sri Chikkudu Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services

appearing for respondent No.1, and Sri M. Ram Gopal Rao,

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-TSPSC.

3) According to the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, the petitioner has completed M.Sc. (Botony) in the year

2007 and B.Ed. in the year 2011 from Osmania University and

also worked as a Junior Lecturer in Botony from June, 2007, to

April, 2013 at Elite Vocational Junior College, Saroor Nagar,

Hyderabad. Thereafter, she worked as Principal in Pragathi

Vidyanikethan High School at Medaripet, Dandapalli Mandal, 2 PK,J wp_13823_2023

Mancherial District, from 01.06.2013 to 01.04.2017 i.e. for four

academic years. While so, the second respondent has issued

notification No.29/2017, dated 02.06.2017, inviting applications

from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Principal

(School) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies,

prescribing the educational qualifications and experience as "A

Second Class Master's Degree with not less than 50% of marks in

aggregate or its equivalent and B.Ed. or its equivalent degree"

along with "total teaching experience of not less than 8 years

including not less than 5 years as PGT/JL in any Government or

recognized school/college and three years of administrative

experience as HM/Principal of concerned College". As the

petitioner is eligible for the post of Principal, she has applied for

the said post, appeared for the main examination vide Hall Ticket

No.1729000929 as per the schedule given by respondent No.2 and

secured 130 marks out of 300 marks in written examination

without normalization. Further, on 19.10.2018, the second

respondent has issued web notification stating that "the

candidates who have attended certificate verification for the post

of Principal in Junior Colleges (Notification No.25/17) and

Principals in Schools (Notification No.29/17) that they have to get

3 PK,J wp_13823_2023

their experience certificate attested by the concerned District DEO

or DIEO and the same may be produced at TSPSC office within 15

days". Further, a second web notification was issued on

14.03.2019 stating that "out of 1295 candidates, the candidature

of 914 has been rejected on various reasons" and calling valid

objections to submit before 17.03.2019 by sending to official

e mail. In response to the same, the petitioner has submitted her

valid objections on 24.04.2019 duly submitting experience

certificates i.e. teaching experience of 5 years and administrative

experience as Principal for 3 years. By considering the same, the

second respondent has called the petitioner for interview on

06.09.2019 and she has successfully completed the interview and

was expecting selection. But, the second respondent has passed

the impugned proceedings dated 26.02.2021 rejecting the claim of

the petitioner on the ground that she has submitted additional

documents and experience certificates, in fact, the petitioner has

not submitted any additional documents or revised documents.

Therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of

the petitioners, while considering the cases of similarly situated

persons who have also submitted experience certificates like the

petitioner to the second respondent, amounts to arbitrary, 4 PK,J wp_13823_2023

discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and

also against the conditions of the notification No.29/2017 dated

02.06.2017. Learned counsel further submitted that huge

irregularities and illegalities have taken place during the

recruitment undertaken by the second respondent. The persons

who are having sufficient qualification and secured more marks

with sufficient teaching and administrative experience in

accordance with Notification, have not been allowed in the further

process of selection and not been selected, but few of candidates,

who have not submitted experience certificates, were considered

and allowed for further selection process and also issued

appointment orders. Therefore, the action of the respondents in

selectively allowing the similarly situated persons amounts to

arbitrary and discriminatory.

4) Learned counsel has further submitted that after issuance of

the web note along with candidates' rejection list dated

14.03.2019 issued by the second respondent, the petitioner has

submitted material facts within the stipulated period. Thereafter,

few candidates have approached this Hon'ble Court by way of Writ

Petition and the same was disposed of vide order dated

10.04.2019 in W.P. No.5672 of 2019 directing the respondents to 5 PK,J wp_13823_2023

consider the candidates' revised or additional documents and

re-examine the 39 candidates and to consider for further process

of selection. Thereafter, alleging that the respondents have

entertained additional documents from some of the aspiring

candidates contrary to Notification No.29/2017 and judgment in

W.P.No.5672 of 2019 dated 10.04.2019, W.P. No.19232 of 2019

was filed and the same was disposed of by this Court on

21.10.2020 directing the second respondent to re-examine the

experience certificates of 39 candidates, who were made eligible by

the TSPSC pursuant to the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in

W.P. No.5672 of 2019 & batch. Aggrieved by the order dated

21.10.2020 passed in W.P. No.19232 of 2019, Writ Appeal was

filed vide W.A. No.511 of 2020 wherein vide judgment dated

12.02.2021, the Division Bench of this Court has set aside the

orders of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 &

batch. Further, the SLP Civil Diary No.63301/2021 filed by the

second respondent was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

on 22.03.2021. Subsequently, a review was filed in Writ Appeal

No.511 of 2020 and the same was also dismissed on 27.04.2022

and in the whole episode, neither the petitioner has filed any writ

petition nor was impleaded in the writ appeal as a party. But, 6 PK,J wp_13823_2023

unknowingly she was impleaded in the SLP and in the review

petition of writ appeal. Except that, the petitioner is no way

concerned with the above orders and therefore the same are not

binding on her. It is further submitted that while rejecting the

claim of the petitioner, the second respondent has considered the

cases of similarly situated persons viz., B. Venkataiah, S.D.

Naseemunnisa Begum, B. Sandhya and Pasham Venkat Reddy,

who have also submitted additional documents/revised

documents like the petitioner and were selected and appointed to

the post of Principal ignoring the merit of the petitioner, arbitrarily

and the second respondent has not followed the theory of Equity

and Parity. Therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting

the case of the petitioner while considering the case of the

similarly situated persons is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory

and also in violation of principles of natural justice and also in

violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, it is prayed this Court to pass appropriate orders in the

writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Kunnathat

Thathunni Moopil Nair v. State of Kerala 1, E.P. Royappa v.

State of Tamil Nadu 2, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v.

1 AIR 1961 SC 552 2 (1974) 4 SCC 3 7 PK,J wp_13823_2023

International Airport Authority of India 3, State of Tamil

Nadu v. G. Hemalathaa 4, D.S. Nakara v. Union of India 5,

Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Jahi

Mill Workers Association v. National Textile Corporation

Limited 6, Saktipada Mohapatra v. State of Orissa 7, and

Unreported judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.429-430 of 2021 dated

18.02.2021.

5) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

second respondent has contended that the second respondent has

issued notification inviting applications for the post of Principals

(Schools) in Residential Educational Institutions Societies in the

State of Telangana to fill up 303 posts out of which 146 belong to

Boys institutions and 157 vacancies belong to Girls Institutions,

vide notification No.29/2017 dated 02.06.2017 with the

prescribed qualification of "Second Class Master's Degree and

B.Ed. with a total teaching experience of not less than 8 years

including not less than 5 years as PGT/JL in any Government or

Recognized Institution and three years administrative experience

as Head Master/Principal of Government or Recognized High

3 (1979) 3 SCC 489 4 (2020) 19 SCC 430 5 (1983) 1 SCC 305 6 2021 SCC OnLine SC 972 7 2022 (1) S.C.T. 665 8 PK,J wp_13823_2023

School or Junior College". Further, the Commission has

instructed the candidates by way of a web note that their

experience certificates attested by DEO/DIEO be filed for

confirmation of the genuinity of the experience, so as to enable the

Commission to take a decision on the basis of DEO report as to

whether the candidate's candidature has to be admitted or not. It

is further submitted that the petitioner has applied to the post of

PGT and submitted teaching experience certificate for the period

from June, 2007 to April, 2013 as Lecturer in Junior College

i.e. 6 years teaching experience but not submitted Administrative

experience certificate. Therefore, her candidature was previously

rejected by showing the reason 'No Administrative experience".

On being challenge to the said rejection orders, this Court in W.P.

No.5672 of 2019 & batch, vide common order dated 10.04.2019

while setting aside the rejection orders directed all the candidates

whose cases were rejected to submit their representations by

enclosing the experience certificates to the Telangana State Public

Service Commission and upon such representations being

received TSPSC to examine each individual case on its merits and

pass individual speaking orders. In pursuance thereof, the

petitioner has submitted another experience certificate 9 PK,J wp_13823_2023

i.e. Administrative Experience from June, 2013, to April, 2017

(four years), as Principal in High School. Hence, she was admitted

and called for interview as per the result notification dated

28.08.2019. However, the Division Bench has passed judgment in

Writ Appeal No.511 of 2020 dated 12.02.2021 holding that

permitting the rejected candidates to submit new/additional

documents and experience certificates is not valid. Based on the

same, the candidature of the petitioner was not considered for

selection and rejected since she has submitted the revised

experience certificates. To that effect, a speaking Order was

communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 26.02.2021. As

regards the allegation of considering the cases of the similarly

situated candidates with H.T.Nos.1729000439, 1729000903,

1729001036 and 1729001270 is concerned, it is contended that

the names of the candidates with H.T.Nos.1729000439,

1729001036 and 1729001270 were in final admission from the

beginning since they have produced requisite Teaching &

Administrative experience certificates as prescribed in the

Notification for the post of Principal (Schools). Therefore, there is

no discriminatory on the part of the respondents and the 10 PK,J wp_13823_2023

respondents are justified in passing the impugned order. Hence,

it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the

respective parties and perused the material on record.

7) For better adjudication of the matter, relevant portion of the

judgment passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.511 of

2022 dated 12.02.2021 is extracted hereunder:

"24. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the understanding of 2nd respondent-Commission, of the order in W.P.No.5672 of 2019 and batch, as permitting the candidates to file fresh / new experience certificates or additional documents in addition to the documents that were submitted along with their online applications through OTR process, is misconceived.

25. In the light of the above, this Court is of the view that the action of the 2nd respondent in considering the new/additional documents submitted by 39 candidates cannot be held to be valid and also the direction of the learned single Judge in directing the 2nd respondent-Commission to re-examine the experience certificates of 39 candidates in view of the objection raised by the petitioners, also cannot be sustained.

26. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is allowed; direction of the learned single Judge to re-examine the new experience certificates of the 39 candidates furnished subsequently after the submission of application through online OTR process, is hereby set aside; the action of the 2nd respondent-Commission in permitting the rejected candidates to submit new / additional documents and experience

11 PK,J wp_13823_2023

certificates cannot be held to be valid; and the action of the 2nd respondent-Commission considering such new / additional documents in respect of 39 candidates is also liable to be rejected. The 2nd respondent-Commission is hereby directed to consider only the documents uploaded by each of these 39 candidates along with the application submitted through online process, if not considered earlier, on its merit and pass individual speaking order and communicate the same to the candidate as directed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2019 in W.P. No.5672 of 2019 and batch."

(emphasis added)

In pursuance to the above directions of the Division Bench, the

second respondent has considered and rejected the case of the

petitioner, vide impugned order, on the ground that she has not

uploaded administrative experience certificate along with the

application submitted through online process. Therefore, the

impugned order is inconsonance with the directions of the

Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.511 of 2022, referred supra.

8) Learned counsel for the petitioner has also challenged the

impugned order on the ground of discrimination contending that

the candidature of the petitioner was rejected while the cases of

similarly situated persons viz., B. Venkataiah, S.D. Naseemunnisa

Begum, B. Sandhya and Pasham Venkat Reddy, was considered

and also alleged that huge illegalities and irregularities have taken

place in the entire selection process. In this regard, it is the 12 PK,J wp_13823_2023

specific assertion of the second respondent in the counter that out

of the four names mentioned by the petitioner, names of three

persons are in the final admission from the beginning since they

have produced requisite Teaching & Administrative experience

certificates as prescribed in the Notification. Therefore, the

contention urged by the petitioner that the cases of the similarly

situated candidates were considered by the respondents while the

case of the petitioner was rejected, has no foce. Further, even

assuming for a moment, for the sake of arguments, that some of

the candidates were selected illegally and irregularly, the

petitioner is estopped from seeking the said concession on the

ground of law of Negative equality.

9) While dealing with a similar situation in Fuljit Kaur v.

State of Punjab 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as

under:

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia. In view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or

8 (2010) 11 SCC 455

13 PK,J wp_13823_2023

multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise Article 14 cannot be stretched too far otherwise it would make function of the administration impossible.

12. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief."

(emphasis added)

10) In view of the above settled principle of law, this Court is of

the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim negative

equality and seek relief under the umbrella of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India alleging discrimination. In this scenario, this

Court has not gone into the original record produced by the

learned Standing Counsel, pursuant to the orders of this Court.

11) For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court does not find

any merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be

dismissed.

12) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

14 PK,J wp_13823_2023