Telangana High Court
Thati Gangadas vs S.Rajeshwar on 14 June, 2024
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL No.686 OF 2024
JUDGMENT:
(Per the Hon'ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)
Aggrieved by the interim order, dated 02.05.2024, passed
in W.P.No.12410 of 2024 by a learned Single Judge of this
Court, the present Writ Appeal is filed.
2. Heard Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned counsel for the
appellants and Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the
contesting respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that all
the appellants are working as Secondary Grade Teachers (for
short, 'SGT'). All the appellants have passed Teacher Eligibility
Test (for short, 'T.E.T.') and they are fully eligible and qualified
to be promoted as School Assistants. The grievance of the
appellants is that the official respondents have prepared the
seniority list of all the SGTs, who are eligible for promotion to
the post of School Assistant, and in the said list, the official
respondents have included the names of ineligible candidates
also i.e. who did not possess T.E.T. qualification. Aggrieved by
the said action of the official respondents, the appellants have
approached this Court by filing W.P.No.26915 of 2023 and a
2 AKS,J & LNA,J
learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated
27.09.2023, was pleased to grant interim order in favour of the
appellants by directing the official respondents to effect
promotions to the post of School Assistant, strictly in
accordance with National Council for Teacher Education (for
short, 'NCTE') Regulations.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended
that when the said order is subsisting, the contesting
respondents, who have not acquired T.E.T. qualification,
approached this Court by filing the subject W.P.No.12410 of
2024 claiming exemption from acquiring T.E.T. qualification on
the ground that they were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 i.e.
before issuance of notification by NCTE, and that their cases
should also be considered for promotion to the post of School
Assistant. The learned Single Judge of this Court was pleased
to pass the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, directing the
official respondents to consider the cases of the contesting
respondents also for promotion to the post of School Assistant,
without insisting for passing T.E.T., contrary to the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26915 of 2023,
dated 27.09.2023.
3 AKS,J & LNA,J
5. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended
that the State Government has issued G.O.Ms.No.36, dated
23.12.2015, wherein, exemption was granted to such of those
persons who were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 from passing
T.E.T. Learned counsel further contended that the learned
Single Judge is aware of the interim order, dated 27.09.2023,
passed in favour of the appellants by another learned Single
Judge of this Court and though the learned Single Judge has
referred and extracted the said interim order, dated
27.09.2023, in the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, the
learned Single Judge, without hearing the appellants, had
diluted the interim order, dated 27.09.2023, passed in
W.P.No.26915 of 2023.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended
that when two Writ Petitions are filed i.e. one by the appellants
seeking that T.E.T. qualification should be insisted while
effecting promotion to the post of School Assistant and the
other by the contesting respondents claiming that promotion
should be effected to them without insisting for T.E.T.
qualification, and when two rival claims are made, the learned
Single Judge ought to have clubbed both the Writ Petitions,
4 AKS,J & LNA,J
hear the same on merits and pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants had further contended
that NCTE has issued a notification on 23.08.2010, in exercise
of powers conferred under Section 23(1) of The Right of
Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, wherein
minimum qualification required for appointment as Teacher for
Classes I to VIII were prescribed and as per the said minimum
qualification, one must pass T.E.T. and such of those who did
not acquire T.E.T. qualification were given five years time to
acquire the said qualification and in spite of granting five years
time to the contesting respondents, they did not choose to clear
T.E.T. Learned counsel further contended that the subject
issue was also considered by the Madras High Court in Writ
Appeal No.313 of 2022 and batch, dated 02.06.2023, wherein
the Madras High Court has held that the persons, who could
not pass T.E.T. can continue as Secondary Grade Teachers,
but, however, their cases cannot be considered for further
promotion until they acquire the said qualification, and the
matter was carried to the Honourable Supreme Court by filing
S.L.P.(Civil).No.45649 of 2023 and the Honourable Supreme
5 AKS,J & LNA,J
Court vide order, dated 20.11.2023, declined to suspend the
order passed by the Madras High Court, however, listed the
matter along with other identical case.
8. Learned counsel further contended that if at all any
exemption has to be granted, it has to be granted only by the
Central Government but not by the State Government.
Therefore, mere issuance of G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 23.12.2015,
would not entitle the contesting respondents to seek exemption
from clearing T.E.T. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in
the Writ Appeal by setting aside the impugned order, dated
02.05.2024, passed in W.P.No.12410 of 2024 by the learned
Single Judge and direct the learned Single Judge to club both
the cases i.e. W.P.No.12410 of 2024 and W.P.No.26915 of
2023, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting
respondents had contended that all the contesting respondents
were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 i.e. before issuance of the
notification by NCTE. Therefore, in respect of the persons, who
were appointed prior to issuance of notification by NCTE, the
State has taken a decision to exempt such persons from
passing T.E.T. vide G.O.Ms.No.36, dated 23.12.2015 and
6 AKS,J & LNA,J
therefore, the official respondents cannot insist that the
contesting respondents should pass T.E.T. The learned Single
Judge has rightly considered the case of the contesting
respondents and granted interim order in their favour and
rightly directed the official respondents to consider the cases of
the contesting respondents for promotion to the post of School
Assistant, without insisting for passing T.E.T.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents had further contended that the issue raised in the
present case is already adjudicated by the Allahabad High
Court in W.A.No.2879 of 2024, dated 19.03.2024, wherein the
Allahabad High Court has categorically held that persons who
were appointed prior to 23.08.2010 i.e. date of notification
issued by the NCTE, are exempted from passing T.E.T.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon the
judgment of the Allahabad High Court and came to a
conclusion that the contesting respondents are eligible for
promotion to the post of School Assistant, without passing
T.E.T. Learned counsel further contended that the official
respondents never informed the contesting respondents that
they should pass T.E.T. As the contesting respondents are all
7 AKS,J & LNA,J
appointed prior to 23.08.2010, the official respondents cannot
insist that the contesting respondents should pass T.E.T.
Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same
is liable to be dismissed.
11. This Court, having considered the rival submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties, is of the
considered view that the learned Single Judge ought to have
clubbed both the cases i.e. W.P.No.12410 of 2024 and
W.P.No.26915 of 2023, as the appellants as well as the
contesting respondents are claiming contrary reliefs. For
promotion to the post of School Assistant, the appellants are
insisting for passing T.E.T., whereas the contesting
respondents are contending that their cases should be
considered for promotion without insisting for passing T.E.T.,
by way of exemption. The learned Single Judge having
extracted the order, dated 27.09.2023, passed in W.P.No.26915
of 2023, ought to have given an opportunity to the appellants,
who were the writ petitioners in W.P.No.26915 of 2023.
Therefore, the impugned order, dated 02.05.2024, passed in
W.P.No.12410 of 2024 is liable to be set aside and accordingly,
the same is set aside, as admittedly, the appellants were not
8 AKS,J & LNA,J
heard while passing the impugned order in favour of the
contesting respondents. A request is made to the learned
Single Judge to club both the cases i.e. W.P.No.12410 of 2024
and W.P.No.26915 of 2023 and pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law, after hearing all the parties concerned,
without being influenced by any of the observations made by
this Court.
12. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Appeal
is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in this Writ
Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 14.06.2024.
MD
