Telangana High Court
Musini Ramesh vs Telangana Residential Educational ... on 21 April, 2025
Author: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Bench: Abhinand Kumar Shavili
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL Nos.910, 1256, 1345 of 2024
& WRIT PETITION No.18583 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Laxmi Narayana Alishetty)
Writ Petition No.18583 of 2024 is filed to declare the action
of Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment
Board (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as 'TREIRB') in not
conducting examination dated 01.08.2023 in Telugu language for
the post of Craft Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions
Societies as per Notification No.07/2023, dated 05.04.2023, as
illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct TREIRB to
conduct fresh examination to the post of Craft Teachers in
bilingual mode, i.e., English and Telugu.
2. W.A.No.910 of 2024 is filed by writ petitioner Nos.1 and 2
in W.P.18583 of 2024 aggrieved by the interim order dated
16.07.2024 passed in WP No.18583 of 2024.
3. W.A.No.1256 of 2024 is filed by TREIRB and W.A.No.1345
of 2024 is filed by the candidates aggrieved by the order dated
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
04.04.2024 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in
W.P.No.22593 of 2023.
4. Since the issue involved in all these cases is one and the
same, all the cases are heard together and are being disposed of
by this common judgment.
5. Heard Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants in WA.No.910 of 2024 and the petitioners in
WP.No.18583 of 2024, Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned
counsel for appellants in WA.No.1345 of 2024, Sri N.Ramesh,
learned Standing Counsel for TREIRB and learned Government
Pleader for Higher Education.
6. For convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as
they are arrayed in W.P.No.18583 of 2024 and the facts of the case
as narrated in Writ Petition No.18583 of 2024 are referred
hereunder:
7. Respondent No.1 issued Notification No.07/2023 dated
05.04.2023 inviting On-line applications from qualified candidates
for direct recruitment to the post of Craft Teachers in Residential
Educational Institutions Societies. In the said notification, at
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
Para-I (1) (v), it was mentioned that question paper will be
bilingual i.e., English and Telugu. Petitioners responded to the
said notification and submitted their applications. Examination
was conducted on 01.08.2023, however, contrary to the
notification, the question paper was given in English language
only instead of giving in both English and Telugu languages.
Petitioners made oral representation to the authorities concerned
requesting to cancel the examination and to conduct
re-examination in both English and Telugu languages. However,
as no action was taken by the authorities concerned, Writ Petition
No.18583 of 2024 was filed by the candidates seeking to declare
the action of TREIRB in not conducting the examination dated
01.08.2023 in Telugu language for the post of Craft Teachers in
Residential Educational Institutions as illegal and arbitrary and a
learned single Judge of this Court while issuing notice before
admission, passed interim order, dated 16.07.2024, holding that
any selections made pursuant to Notification No.07/2023, dated
05.04.2023, shall be subject to the final outcome of the said writ
petition. Aggrieved by the said interim order dated 16.07.2024
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
and non-granting of relief of withholding the declaration of
results of examination dated 01.08.2023 conducted for the post of
Craft Teachers, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein preferred
W.A.No.910 of 2024.
8. It is further averred that earlier, some of the candidates
who wrote examination for the post of Art Teachers have filed
W.P.No.22593 of 2023 seeking to declare the action of TREIRB in
not conducting the examination in Telugu language as null and
void and a learned single Judge of this Court vide order dated
23.08.2023 granted interim order directing the respondents not to
finalize the results of the examination held on 01.08.2023 until
further orders. In view of the said interim order, TREIRB has not
declared the results of examination held for the post of Art
Teachers.
9. Subsequently, the said W.P.No.22593 of 2023 was disposed
of by the learned single Judge vide order dated 04.04.2024 holding
that the action of TREIRB in conducting examination in single
language, i.e. English only, in spite of mentioning as bilingual in
notification, cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is liable
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
to be set aside and further, directed TREIRB to conduct fresh
written examination for the post of Art Teachers in two languages
i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in Notification No.6/2023
dated 05.04.2023 without any deviation.
10. Aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2024 passed in
W.P.No.22593 of 2024, TREIRB preferred W.A.No.1256 of 2024
and some of the candidates who appeared for the examination
preferred W.A.No.1345 of 2024.
11. Sri Baglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellants in WA No.910 of 2024 and petitioners in WP.No.18583
of 2024, contended that as per Para-I (1)(v) of the Notification
No.07/2023, dated 05.04.2023, the examination should be
conducted in both English and Telugu languages, however, the
Recruitment Board had conducted the examination on 01.08.2023
in English language only, contrary to the notification dated
05.04.2023, therefore, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to
be set aside. He further contended that the writ petitioners, who
have pursued their studies in Telugu medium, were put to
disadvantageous position as they could not understand the
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
question paper which was only in English language in a proper
manner and thus, could not write the examination properly, and
as a result, they did not succeed in the examination. Learned
counsel finally contended that TREIRB conducted the
examination contrary to its own notification and hence, the same
is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. He further
contended that TREIRB may be directed to conduct the
examination afresh in two languages as per the notification dated
05.04.2023.
12. Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel for the
appellants in W.A.No.1345 of 2024, had contended that the order
dated 04.04.2024 of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.22593 of
2023 is liable to be set aside on the sole ground that the writ
petitioners approached this Court belatedly, i.e., after release of
final key of examination and having realized that they do not
come within the zone of consideration. He further contended that
the candidates therein participated in the written examination for
the post of Art Teachers without raising any objection, however,
the learned single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition No.22593
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
of 2023 and directed the respondents therein to conduct fresh
examination for the post of Art Teachers in two languages i.e.,
English and Telugu as specified in Notification No.6/2023, dated
05.04.2023, without any deviation. He further contended that at
this stage, cancelling the earlier examination and conducting
re-examination would result in mental agony, hardship and
financial loss to the candidates, besides delay in recruitment
process. Therefore, he prayed to allow W.A.No.1345 of 2024.
13. Learned Standing Counsel for TREIRB contended that the
learned single Judge erred in cancelling the earlier examination
and directing to conduct fresh examination. He further contended
that all the residential institutions working under the five
residential societies are English medium institutions and the
selected candidates have to teach in English medium only.
Therefore, conducting the examination in English language only
has not caused any prejudice to the candidates. He further
submitted that in all the recruitments notified under Notification
Nos.1 to 9, dated 05.04.2023, for filling different posts for different
subjects, i.e., PD, Librarian/JL PD Librarian/PGT/Librarian
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
School/PD School/Art Teacher/Craft Teacher/Music
Teacher/TGT, the question paper was in English only and
further, Arts/Craft/Music examinations being a single optional
paper examinations, the question paper will be given in English
language only. He further contended that cancelling the earlier
examination and conducting examination afresh will be burden
on TREIRB and therefore, TREIRB may be allowed to finalize the
selection process of the earlier examination. He further contended
that for the sake of few candidates, the fate of nearly 4359
candidates, who appeared for the earlier examination, cannot be
put on hold, which leads to deprivation of their fundamental
rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and finally, he prayed to allow WA.No.1256 of 2024.
14. Perusal of the record would disclose that Notification
No.6/2023 dated 05.04.2023 was issued for the post of Arts
Teachers in Residential Educational Institutions Societies and the
examination was conducted on 01.08.2023 in English language
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
only, contrary to the notification dated 05.04.2023, wherein it was
specifically mentioned at Para-I (1)(v) that the question paper is
bilingual i.e., English and Telugu. The said action of the TREIRB
was challenged before a learned single Judge of this Court by
filing W.P.No.22593 of 2023. The learned single Judge, on due
consideration of the material placed on record as well as the
submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties therein and also by referring to the decision of a
Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjusree v. State of
Andhra Pradesh and another 1, had allowed the said Writ Petition
and directed TREIRB to conduct fresh written examination for the
post of Art Teachers in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as
specified in Notification No.6/2023 dated 05.04.2023 without any
deviation.
15. It is pertinent to note that the subject Notification, i.e.,
Notification No.7/2023 dated 05.04.2023, issued for recruitment
of Craft Teachers, is similar to that of Notification No.6/2023,
which was challenged in W.P.No.22593 of 2023.
(2008) 3 SCC 512
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
16. The learned single Judge in its judgment referred to the
ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjusree
(1 supra), wherein it is held as under:
"27. But what could not have been done was the second
change, by introduction of the criterion of minimum marks for
the interview. The minimum marks for interview had never
been adopted by the Andhra Pradesh High Court earlier for
selection of District & Sessions Judges, (Grade II). In regard to
the present selection, the Administrative Committee merely
adopted the previous procedure in vogue. The previous
procedure as stated above was to apply minimum marks only
for written examination and not for the oral examination. We
have referred to the proper interpretation of the earlier
Resolutions dated 24-7-2001 and 21-2-2002 and held that
what was adopted on 30-11-2004 was only minimum marks
for written examination and not for the interviews. Therefore,
introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for
interview, after the entire selection process (consisting of
written examination and interview) was completed, would
amount to changing the rules of the game after the game was
played which is clearly impermissible. We are fortified in this
view by several decisions of this Court. It is sufficient to refer
to three of them -- P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India
[(1984) 2 SCC 141 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 214] , Umesh Chandra
Shukla v. Union of India [(1985) 3 SCC 721 : 1985 SCC (L&S)
919] and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa [(1987) 4 SCC
646 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 36 : (1987) 5 ATC 148] ."
17. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that
introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview,
after the entire selection process (consisting of written
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
examination and interview) was completed, would amount to
changing the rules of the game after the game was played which is
clearly impermissible.
18. In Maharashtra SRTC v. Rajendra Bhyimrao Mandve 2, the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the rules of the game, meaning
thereby that the criteria for selection cannot be altered by the
authorities concerned in the middle or after the process of
selection has commenced. The Hon'ble Apex Court further
observed that not only the rules of the game were changed, but
they were changed after the game has been played and the results
of the game were being awaited. That is unacceptable and
impermissible.
19. In a recent judgment in Tej Prakash Pathak and others v.
Rajasthan High Court and others 3, the larger Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, while upholding the Full Bench judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjusree (1 supra), held as under:
"52. Thus, in our view, the appointing authority/ recruiting
authority/competent authority, in absence of rules to the
(2001) 10 SCC 51
(2025) 2 SCC 1
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
contrary, can devise a procedure for selection of a candidate
suitable to the post and while doing so it may also set
benchmarks for different stages of the recruitment process
including written examination and interview. However, if
any such benchmark is set, the same should be stipulated
before the commencement of the recruitment process. But if
the extant Rules or the advertisement inviting applications
empower the competent authority to set benchmarks at
different stages of the recruitment process, then such
benchmarks may be set any time before that stage is reached
so that neither the candidate nor the evaluator/examiner/
interviewer is taken by surprise.
53. The decision in K. Manjusree [K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.,
(2008) 3 SCC 512 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 841] does not
proscribe setting of benchmarks for various stages of the
recruitment process but mandates that it should not be set
after the stage is over, in other words after the game has
already been played. This view is in consonance with the
rule against arbitrariness enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution and meets the legitimate expectation of the
candidates as also the requirement of transparency in
recruitment to public services and thereby obviates
malpractices in preparation of select list."
20. In the present case, admittedly, in notification Nos.6/2023
and 7/2023, dated 05.04.2023, it was specifically mentioned at
Para-I(1)(v) that ''the question paper is bilingual i.e., English
and Telugu''. Therefore, the examination was supposed to be
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
conducted in two languages, however, the examination was
conducted only in English language contrary to the method
prescribed in the notification. Thus, the action of TREIRB has put
the candidates who have pursued their studies in Telugu
medium in a disadvantageous position.
21. In the present case, the action of TREIRB in conducting the
examination for the posts of Craft Teachers/Art Teachers in
English language only, contrary to Para-1(1)(v) of Notification
No.7/2023, dated 05.04.2023, and again taking a 'U' turn and
stating that the examination paper for optional subjects viz.,
Arts/Craft/Music shall be in English language only, amounts to
violating the terms and conditions in the said Notification, which
is not appreciated. In other words, TREIRB being a responsible
authority is bound by the Notification which is being issued by it
and any contravention of the said Notification would only result
in putting the future of the candidates at stake. Hence, the action
of the TREIRB in conducting the examination for the posts of Art
Teachers/Craft Teachers in English language only is not
sustainable.
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
22. In view of the totality of facts of the case as stated above,
the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manjusree's
case (1 supra), in Maharashtra SRTC's case (2 supra) and in Tej
Prakash Pathak's case (3 supra), squarely applies to the present
cases.
23. In the case on hand, the stand taken by TREIRB that
examination for optional subjects viz., Arts/Craft/Music shall be
in English language, that too, after the completion of the
examination, amounts to changing the rules of the game after the
game was played, therefore, the same is clearly impermissible in
the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
24. In the result, W.P.No.18583 of 2024 and W.A.No.910 of 2024
are allowed and W.A.Nos.1256 and 1345 of 2024 are dismissed.
The Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment
Board and the State of Telangana, Higher Education Department
are directed to conduct examination afresh for the post of
Art/Craft Teachers in the Residential Educational Institutions
Societies in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in
Notification Nos.6/2023 and 7/2023, dated 05.04.2024, without
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
any deviation, as early as possible since the said notifications are
of the year 2023. There shall be no order as to costs.
25. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
___________________________________
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date:21.04.2025
Kkm/dr
ASK,J & LNA,J
W.A.No.910 of 2024 & batch.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
&
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
WRIT APPEAL NOs.910, 1256, 1345 of 2024 &
W.P.No.18583 OF 2024
Date: .04.2025
Kkm
