[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
V. Anil Kumar vs State Of Telangana on 2 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL Nos.176, 185, 190, 191, 232, 251, 258, 259
and 260 of 2026
DATE: 02.04.2026
W.A.No.176 of 2026
Between:
V.Anil Kumar and 7 others
....Appellants
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 9 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.185 of 2026
Between:
P.Sadanandam
....Appellant
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Technical
Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 14 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.190 of 2026
Between:
P.Sadanandam
....Appellant
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 16 others
....Respondents
2
W.A.No.191 of 2026
Between:
P.Sadanandam
....Appellant
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 17 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.232 of 2026
Between:
V.Anil Kumar and 7 others
....Appellants
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 9 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.251 of 2026
Between:
V.Anil Kumar and 7 others
....Appellants
And
State of Telangana, rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Higher
Education Department, Secretariat,
Hyderabad and 7 others
....Respondents
3
W.A.No.258 of 2026
Between:
Telangana State Public Service
Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
....Appellant
And
Pendem Narender and 17 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.259 of 2026
Between:
Telangana State Public Service
Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
....Appellant
And
Mohammad Karishma and 16 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.260 of 2026
Between:
Telangana State Public Service
Commission, rep. by its Secretary,
Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road,
Nampally, Hyderabad.
....Appellant
And
Naseema Sultana and 14 others
....Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT
Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are
integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of
by this Common Judgment.
2. W.A.Nos.176, 191 and 258 of 2026 are directed against
W.P.No.25531 of 2024; W.A.Nos.185, 251 and 260 of 2026 are
directed against W.P.No.24496 of 2024 and W.A.Nos.190, 232 and
259 of 2026 are directed against W.P.No.25837 of 2024.
3. All the aforesaid writ appeals are against common order
dated 12.12.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.25531, 25837 and 24496 of
2024 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single
Judge has disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the
respondent authorities to consider or reconsider the claim of the
respondents herein (writ petitioners) for appointment to the post of
Librarian, pursuant to Notification No.30/2022 dated 31.12.2022,
purely on the basis of their merit, and without reference to the
rejection order, in a manner similar to the cases of other
candidates who were allegedly similarly situated and had been
appointed or promoted earlier.
4. Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing
Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the appellants in
W.A.Nos.176, 232 and 251 of 2026; Sri M.Surender Rao, learned
Senior Counsel representing Sri Rama Rao Kilaru, learned counsel
for the appellant in W.A.Nos.185, 190 and 191 of 2026; Sri
P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public
Service Commission; Sri G.Prasanth, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the State of
Telangana; Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.5 to 9 in W.A.No.176 of 2026 and respondent
Nos.2 to 6 in W.A.No.258 of 2026; Ms.B.Rachna Reddy, learned
Senior Counsel representing Sri Md.Baseer Riyaz, learned counsel
for respondent No.13 in W.A.No.190 of 2026 and respondent
Nos.13 to 17 in W.A.No.191 of 2026; Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma,
learned counsel for respondent No.13 in W.A.No.185 of 2026,
respondent No.5 in W.A.No.251 of 2026 and respondent No.1 in
W.A.No.260 of 2026 and perused the record.
Factual matrix
5. The Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter
referred to as "TGPSC") issued Notification No.30/2022 dated
31.12.2022 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of
Librarian. The notification was issued pursuant to
requisitions/indent received from the State Government, notifying
a total of 71 vacancies, comprising 40 posts under the control of
the Commissioner of Intermediate Education and 31 posts under
the control of the Commissioner of Technical Education.
6. Clause 6 of the said notification prescribed the requisite
educational qualifications. Insofar as the post of Librarian under
Intermediate Education (Post Code No.01) is concerned, the
candidates were required to possess, inter alia, a Bachelor's Degree
in Arts, Science or Commerce, along with a Postgraduate Degree in
Library Science with not less than 50% marks. The said clause was
accompanied by a specific stipulation governing qualifications
obtained through distance education mode, which assumes central
relevance in the present lis and is extracted hereunder:
"N.B:- i) Distance Education:- The Applicants who have obtained
requisite Degrees through Open Universities / Distance Education
mode are required to have recognition by the University Grants
Commission / AICTE / Distance Education Bureau as the case may
be. Unless such Degrees have been recognised by the relevant
Statutory Authority, they will not be accepted for purpose of
Educational Qualification vide its Public Notice No. F.27-1/2012
(CPP-II), Dt. 27/06/2013. (A university established or incorporated
by or under a State act shall operate only within the territorial
jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the
territory of the State of its location). The onus of proof of recognition
by the relevant Statutory Authority that their Degrees / Universities
have been recognised rests with the candidate."
7. Pursuant to the said notification, the written examination
was conducted on 17.05.2023. The respondents herein (writ
petitioners) participated in the selection process and were
subsequently included in the provisional selection list published on
09.09.2024. Thereafter, the TGPSC undertook the process of
certificate verification of the provisionally selected candidates.
During the process, it was discovered that the respondents herein
had obtained their Master of Library and Information Science
(M.Li.Sc.) degree through 'distance education' mode from Acharya
Nagarjuna University, a State University established under the A.P.
Universities Act, 1991 (for short '1991 Act'), having its
headquarters at Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh. However,
the study centres through which the respondents pursued the said
course were admittedly located at places, now within the State of
Telangana.
8. In order to verify the validity and recognition of such degrees,
the TGPSC addressed a communication dated 17.05.2024 to
Acharya Nagarjuna University. The University, by its reply dated
06.06.2024, furnished details of candidates who had obtained
M.Li.Sc. degrees through its Centre for Distance Education. While
indicating in the relevant column that the study centres were
"within jurisdiction" with reference to the A.P. State Reorganization
Act, 2014, (for short, 'Reorganization Act') the University
simultaneously disclosed the actual location of such study centres,
which were in fact, situated within the State of Telangana.
9. Meanwhile, the respondents (writ petitioners) in
W.P.No.25531 of 2024 submitted representations before the
TGPSC seeking recognition of their degrees. Upon inaction, the
respondents herein approached this Court by filing W.P.No.16186
of 2024, which was disposed of with a direction to the TGPSC to
consider their representation. In compliance thereof, the TGPSC
passed a reasoned order, dated 29.08.2024 vide Memo
No.453/Rectt-pool-II/3/2022, rejecting the claim of the
respondents herein. The TGPSC recorded that the degrees
obtained by the respondents herein were through study centres
located outside the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna
University, which, under the governing statute, is confined to the
districts of Guntur and Prakasam. Consequently, such degrees
were held to be invalid for the purpose of recruitment, in view of
the University Grants Commission (UGC) Public Notice dated
27.06.2013, which formed part of the recruitment conditions.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents herein instituted
separate writ petitions before this Court. During the pendency of
the writ proceedings, the appellants herein who are meritorious
candidates whose names appeared in the provisional selection list,
sought to be impleaded. The learned Single Judge allowed the
implead applications, whereupon the appellants entered
appearance and filed their counter-affidavits, along with
applications seeking vacation of interim orders.
11. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration disposed of
the writ petitions vide common order dated 12.12.2025. The
learned Single Judge took note of the contention that in earlier
recruitment processes, including Notification Nos.20/2017 and
28/2017, degrees obtained through distance education mode from
Acharya Nagarjuna University had been accepted, and that even
promotions had been granted on the basis of such qualifications.
Placing reliance on such instances, the learned Single Judge held
that the action of the TGPSC in rejecting the candidature of the
respondents herein (writ petitioners) amounted to discriminatory
treatment vis-à-vis similarly situated candidates. The learned
Single Judge further held that the principle of negative equality
was not attracted to the facts of the case and, accordingly, directed
the respondents to consider/reconsider the claims of the
respondents herein (writ petitioners) for appointment strictly on
merit, without reference to the rejection order dated 29.08.2024.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants
12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, advanced
elaborate submissions assailing the impugned common order
dated 12.12.2025 as under:
i) That the controversy in the present case is not one of alleged
discrimination, but pertains to the foundational validity of
the educational qualification itself. It was contended that the
respondents admittedly obtained their M.Li.Sc. degrees
through distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna
University, through study centres situated in the State of
Telangana.
ii) That the territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna
University, as per its parent Act and the Schedule thereto, is
confined to the districts of Guntur and Prakasam. The
operation of study centres beyond the said territorial limits is
in clear contravention of the statutory framework governing
the University, as well as the mandate contained in the UGC
Public Notice dated 27.06.2013. That the recruitment
notification dated 31.12.2022 expressly incorporates the said
UGC Public Notice, thereby rendering compliance therewith a
condition precedent for eligibility. Consequently, the degrees
obtained by the respondents, being contrary to the statutory
and regulatory regime, are ex facie invalid and cannot be
recognised for the purpose of public employment.
iii) That the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the
Doctrine of "Negative Equality" is inapplicable to the facts of
the present case. It was submitted that even assuming that
certain appointments were made in the past on the basis of
similar qualifications, such appointments, if irregular or
illegal, cannot confer any enforceable right upon the
respondents herein to seek parity. It was emphasised that
Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a positive concept of
equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegality or
irregularity. The doctrine of negative equality operates as a
bar against claiming relief founded upon an earlier erroneous
or illegal action of the State.
iv) That the reliance placed by the respondents herein upon
prior recruitments and promotions, including those under
Notification Nos.20/2017 and 28/2017, is wholly
misconceived and does not give rise to any estoppel against
the appellants or the recruiting authority, as such,
recruitments were conducted under different rules and prior
to the crystallisation of the legal position by this Court in
B. Sai Kiran v. State of Telangana 1. In the said decision,
W.P.No.3006 of 2021, dated 17.08.2022.
it was specifically held that degrees obtained through
distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University
through study centres located in Telangana are not valid for
the purposes of higher education or employment. It was
thus contended that past irregularities, if any, cannot be
relied upon to legitimise an otherwise invalid qualification.
v) That the UGC Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 has statutory
force and is intended to regulate and maintain standards in
higher education, particularly with respect to territorial
jurisdiction and operation of study centres. It was
emphasised that the said Public Notice was expressly
incorporated into the recruitment notification, thereby
forming an integral part of the eligibility conditions. The
TGPSC was bound to strictly enforce the said conditions.
Any deviation therefrom would render the selection process
arbitrary and violative of the Constitutional mandate under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners)
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents (writ
petitioners), supported the impugned common order and
contended that the same does not warrant interference and
advanced the submissions as under:
i) That the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that
the action of the TGPSC in rejecting the candidature of the
respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory. The
respondents placed reliance on multiple instances wherein
candidates possessing identical qualifications, namely
M.Li.Sc. degrees obtained through distance education mode
from Acharya Nagarjuna University, had been appointed or
promoted. Such instances include recruitments under
Notification No.28/2017, appointments made by the
Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational
Institutions Society (TSWREIS), and promotions granted to
the post of Librarian in Government Junior Colleges. It was
submitted that the consistent acceptance of such
qualifications in the past creates a legitimate expectation and
that the sudden departure therefrom results in hostile
discrimination, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
ii) That the respondents pursued their educational
qualifications during the period between 2014 and 2020, and
that Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act guarantees equal
opportunities in higher education to students of both
successor States for a period of ten years. It was argued that
the degrees obtained from Universities of the erstwhile
composite State ought to be treated as valid, irrespective of
whether the study centres were located in Andhra Pradesh or
Telangana.
iii) The learned counsel drew attention to the communication
dated 06.06.2024 issued by Acharya Nagarjuna University,
wherein, in response to a query as to whether the study
centres were within its jurisdiction, the University answered
in the affirmative, referring to the provisions of the
Reorganisation Act. It was contended that the University,
being the degree-granting authority, has recognised the
validity of the degrees in question, and the TGPSC cannot sit
in judgment over such determination.
iv) That the rejection order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the
TGPSC is vitiated by non-application of mind, inasmuch as it
merely reproduces the contents of the UGC Public Notice
without duly considering the factual matrix and the
consistent practice of acceptance of such degrees by the
State and its instrumentalities. It was argued that the said
order is mechanical, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.
14. We have taken note of the respective submissions urged and
the material placed on record.
Consideration by this Court
15. The foundational facts giving rise to the present case stand
admitted and are not in controversy, the respondents having
pursued and obtained their M.Li.Sc. degree through the distance
education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University. It is equally
undisputed that the study centres through which they undertook
the said course were situated within the State of Telangana. The
territorial jurisdiction of Acharya Nagarjuna University is
circumscribed by its parent statute, namely the Andhra Pradesh
Universities Act, 1991. The Schedule appended thereto defines the
"University area" as comprising the districts of Guntur and
Prakasam. Being a State University constituted under statute, its
functional and academic operations are necessarily confined to the
said territorial limits and it cannot establish or operate study
centres beyond such jurisdiction. The relevant schedule is
extracted hereunder:
16. At the outset, it is necessary, for a proper appreciation of the
facts and the applicable law to extract the Public Notice dated
27.06.2013 for consideration by this Court:
Public Notice
on
Courses/Study Centres/Off Campuses & Territorial
Jurisdiction of Universities
No. F.27-1/2012(CPP-II) 27 June, 2013
The Commission has come across many advertisements published in
National Dailies offering opportunities for the award of university
degrees through various franchise programmes conducted by certain
private institutions. These private establishments claiming
themselves as study centres or learning centres of different
universities enrol students for various degree programmes and also
claim to be responsible for teaching and conduct of examinations.
The faculty and the infrastructure belong to these private agencies.
The concerned university except providing syllabus and teaching
materials, has no mechanism to monitor and maintain the academic
standards of teaching being imparted at these centres. This blatant
compromise with the standards of education has led to widespread
criticism. The Commission has taken a serious view of these
misleading advertisements appearing in various newspapers.
It is, therefore, clarified for the information of all concerned, including
students and parents that:
a) a Central or State Government University can conduct courses
through its own departments, its constituent colleges and/or
through its affiliated Colleges;
b) a university established or incorporated by or under a State
act shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction allotted to
it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory of the state of
its location;
c) the private universities and deemed universities cannot
affiliate any college or institution for conducting courses leading
to award of its diplomas, degrees or other qualifications.
d) no University, whether central, state, private or deemed, can
offer its programmes through franchising arrangement with
private coaching institutions even for the purpose of conducting
courses through distance mode.
e) all universities shall award only such degrees as are specified
by the UGC and published in the official gazette.
f) the Universities shall conduct their first degree and Master's
degree programmes in accordance with the regulations notified
by the Commission in this regard.
In this connection, the students and the general public are also
hereby informed of the following regulating provisions pertaining to
different types of universities:
A. UGC Regulations on Private Universities
A private university established under a State Act shall be a unitary
university. A private university may be permitted to open off campus
centres, off shore campuses and study centres after five years of its
coming into existence subject to the fulfillment of conditions as laid
down under UGC (Establishment of & Maintenance of Standards in
Private Universities) Regulations, 2003. As of now, the UGC has not
granted permission to any Private University to establish off-
campus/study centre.
B. UGG Regulations on Deemed Universities
A Deemed University shall operate only within its Headquarters or
from those off campuses/off-shore campuses which are approved by
the Government of India through notification published in the official
gazette.
In case of distance education programmes, no institution deemed to
be university, so declared by the Govt. of India after 26 May, 2010
[date of publication of UGC (Institutions Deemed to be Universities)
Regulations, 2010] is allowed to conduct courses in the distance
mode.
The Institutions deemed to be universities declared before 26th May,
2010 are not allowed to conduct courses in distance mode from any
of its off-campus centres/off-shore campuses approved after 26th
May, 2010.
Approval for new courses and extension of approval of the courses
already run by the Deemed to be Universities under distance mode
would be granted by the UGC subject to the fulfillment of conditions
as laid down by the UGC.
The UGC has not granted approval to any deemed to be university to
establish study centres.
Any information/clarification with regard to recognition of Private
Universities/Deemed Universities and the courses offered by them
may be obtained from JS (CPP-I) UGC, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
New Delhi.
C. Distance Education programmes of the Central Universities
and State Govt. Universities
The Central/State Govt. Universities can conduct courses through
distance mode in accordance with the provisions of their respective
Act and after the approval of the UGC.
The information relating to recognized universities, list of specified
degrees and all the relevant regulations/instructions/guidelines of
the UGC are available on UGC website: www.ugc.ac.in.
The students are, advised not to take admission in the unapproved
Study Centres, Off-Campus Centres, Franchisee Institutions,
Colleges/Institutions claiming to be affiliated with Private
Universities or Deemed Universities.
17. In the aforesaid Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, the UGC
unequivocally clarified that "a university established or
incorporated by or under a State Act shall operate only within the
territorial jurisdiction allotted to it under its Act and in no case
beyond the territory of the State of its location." The establishment
and operation of study centres by Acharya Nagarjuna University in
the State of Telangana is, therefore, plainly in derogation of the
said binding regulatory framework.
18. It is also to be noted that the aforesaid UGC Public Notice
was not merely of general application, but was expressly
incorporated into the recruitment notification issued by the TGPSC
on 31.12.2022. The notification categorically stipulated that
degrees obtained through distance education mode would not be
accepted unless they were duly recognized in terms of the said
UGC norms, and further cast the burden upon the candidate to
establish such recognition. Thus, compliance with the UGC
mandate was made an essential condition of eligibility, and not a
mere procedural formality.
19. In the present case, the respondents have failed to discharge
the said burden. The reliance placed upon the purported
"clarification" issued by Acharya Nagarjuna University, stating that
the degrees are valid "as per the A.P. State Reorganisation Act,
2014," is misconceived and legally untenable. A statutory
University cannot, by way of an administrative communication or
interpretative assertion, enlarge the scope of its territorial
jurisdiction beyond what is expressly provided in its governing
statute. Further, Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act, pertains to
the continuation of admission-related arrangements and equitable
access to educational opportunities for a limited transitional
period. The said provision does not, either expressly or by
necessary implication, override or dilute the binding regulatory
regime framed by the UGC with respect to territorial jurisdiction.
The two operate in distinct and independent domains, and cannot
be conflated so as to confer legitimacy upon an otherwise
impermissible exercise of jurisdiction. Section 95 is extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
Section 95. Equal opportunities for quality higher education
to all students.
In order to ensure equal opportunities for quality higher education to
all students in the successor States, the existing admission quotas in
all government or private, aided or unaided, institutions of higher,
technical and medical education in so far as it is provided under
article 371D of the Constitution, shall continue as such for a period of
ten years during which the existing common admission process shall
continue.
20. In Prof. Yashpal v. State of Chhattisgarh 2, while
examining the validity of legislative measures relating to private
Universities, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that a
University must be an actually established institution, equipped
with the requisite infrastructure, teaching faculty and academic
environment, and not a mere body created for the purpose of
conferring degrees. It was observed that the conferment of degrees
carries serious academic and societal consequences and, therefore,
cannot be dissociated from proper standards of education and
institutional credibility. This principle was reiterated in
Kurmanchal Institute of Degree & Diploma v. Chancellor,
M.J.P. Rohilkhand University 3, wherein the Court held that
study centres, which partake the character of full-fledged academic
establishments, cannot be permitted to be established or operated
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the parent University, as any
such extra-territorial functioning would be contrary to the
statutory scheme governing the University.
(2005) 5 SCC 420
(2007) 6 SCC 35
21. Following the aforesaid dicta, this Court, in B. Sai Kiran's
case (supra 1) had occasion to consider an analogous issue
concerning degrees obtained through distance education mode
from Acharya Nagarjuna University through study centres located
in Telangana. Upon an elaborate consideration of the UGC Public
Notice and the statutory framework, this Court categorically held
that such degrees are not valid for the purpose of admission into
higher educational courses within the State. The principle
enunciated therein is of direct relevance to the present case.
Though the context in B. Sai Kiran's case (supra 1) pertained to
admission, the invalidity of degrees obtained in violation of
territorial jurisdiction norms applies with equal, if not greater,
force in matters of public employment, where adherence to
prescribed qualifications is of paramount importance.
22. Further, the impugned common order of the learned Single
Judge does not advert to this foundational aspect of the matter.
The direction to consider the candidature of the respondents
"purely on merit" proceeds on an implicit assumption that the
degrees held by them constitute valid educational qualifications.
Such an assumption, in the considered view of this Court, is
fundamentally flawed. The rejection of the respondents'
candidature by the TGPSC was not predicated upon an assessment
of comparative merit, but upon a threshold issue of eligibility and
the absence of a valid and recognized educational qualification.
23. It is trite law that possession of the prescribed qualification
is a sine qua non for consideration in a selection process. A
candidate who does not satisfy the minimum eligibility criteria
cannot be considered for appointment, irrespective of performance
in the selection process. Any contrary view would render the
eligibility conditions otiose and defeat the very object of
maintaining standards in public recruitment.
24. It is apposite to note that the learned Single Judge has taken
the view that the present case does not fall within the ambit of the
doctrine of "Negative Equality," on the premise that the
respondents had demonstrated instances of recruitments and
promotions over a period of time wherein degrees obtained from the
very same University through distance education mode were
accepted. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding
is legally unsustainable and proceeds on an erroneous application
of settled principles.
25. The doctrine of "Negative Equality" lays down that Article 14
of the Constitution embodies a positive concept of equality and
cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity. A
benefit erroneously conferred upon one individual, in contravention
of law, does not create a corresponding enforceable right in favour
of others to claim parity. Equality before law cannot be extended
to compel repetition of a wrong.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fuljit Kaur v. State of
Punjab 4, has categorically held as under:
13.....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 a 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 multiplying the same irregularity or
illegality or for passing wrong order.
The said dictum unequivocally affirms that the doctrine of
equality cannot be stretched to legitimise an otherwise unlawful
act.
27. Similarly, in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas 5,
the Apex Court reiterated that "if some persons are given the benefit
wrongly, that cannot form the basis of claiming the same relief," and
further emphasised that the right to equality under Article 14 does
not operate in negative terms. The ratio laid down therein squarely
applies to cases where reliance is placed upon prior irregular or
erroneous actions of the State.
28. It is to be noted that the respondents herein seek to derive
support from certain past recruitments and promotions wherein
degrees obtained through distance education mode from Acharya
Nagarjuna University were accepted. However, the mere existence
of such instances does not, ipso facto, establish their legality or
confer a binding precedent upon the recruiting authority. On the
(2010) 11 SCC 455
(2020) 10 SCC 496
contrary, as borne out from the material on record, such instances
appear to have been made either in ignorance of, or in deviation
from, the binding UGC norms governing territorial jurisdiction and
recognition of degrees. The TGPSC, being a Constitutional body
under Article 315 of the Constitution, is under a statutory
obligation to ensure that recruitment is conducted strictly in
accordance with the applicable rules and regulatory framework. It
cannot be compelled to perpetuate an illegality on the ground that
a similar illegality may have been committed in the past.
29. It is to be noted that reliance placed by the respondents on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Shyam v.
State of U.P. 6 is wholly misconceived. The said decision arose in
the context of a dispute relating to the period of validity of a
waiting list post of Assistant Public Prosecutor prepared by the
Public Service Commission, and the limited question that fell for
consideration therein was whether such period ought to be
reckoned from the date of the first date of recommendation or the
last date of recommendation. The Apex Court directed
consideration of the appellants based on the last date of
recommendation. The ratio of the said judgment is thus confined
to the operation and validity of a select list and does not, in any
manner, deal with or govern the issue of recognition or validity of
(2005) 10 SCC 314
educational qualifications obtained in contravention of statutory or
regulatory norms.
30. Further, it is equally untenable to place the reliance upon
instances of appointments made under Notification No.28/2017. It
is a settled principle that each recruitment process is required to
be tested on the basis of the terms and conditions governing that
particular notification. In the present case, the TGPSC, in explicit
terms, incorporated the UGC Public Notice dated 27.06.2013 as a
binding condition of eligibility. The existence of prior recruitments,
which may have been conducted under a different regulatory
framework or prior to the crystallisation of the legal position, does
not impose any obligation upon the TGPSC to dilute or disregard a
clear statutory mandate forming part of the present notification.
Past practice, even if assumed, cannot override an express
condition of eligibility nor can it operate as a precedent to compel
deviation from binding norms.
31. If the relief sought by the respondents were to be granted,
the inevitable consequence would be to compel the TGPSC to
disregard a binding statutory direction issued by the UGC, which
has been expressly incorporated into the recruitment notification.
Such a course would not only run contrary to the mandate of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but would also erode the
regulatory framework devised to maintain standards in higher
education. Acceptance of degrees obtained in violation of territorial
jurisdiction norms would undermine the integrity of the selection
process and open the floodgates to similar claims from candidates
possessing qualifications of doubtful legal validity. Such a
direction would cause manifest prejudice to the appellants, who
possess valid qualifications and have secured meritorious
positions. Permitting ineligible candidates to be considered would
defeat their legitimate expectation of eligible meritorious candidates
and dilute the prescribed eligibility standards, which is
impermissible under the Constitutional mandate of equality in
public employment.
Conclusion
32. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered
view that the M.Li.Sc. degree obtained by the respondents from
Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance education study
centres in Telangana is not a valid qualification under Notification
No.30/2022, being contrary to the UGC Public Notice dated
27.06.2013, and thus the direction of the learned Single Judge to
consider their candidature without deciding this foundational issue
is legally unsustainable.
33. Accordingly, the W.A.Nos.176, 185, 190, 191, 232, 251, 258,
259 and 260 of 2026, are allowed. The common order dated
12.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25531,
25837 and 24496 of 2024 is hereby set aside and the said writ
petitions shall stand dismissed. All interim orders granted therein
shall stand vacated. The TGPSC and the concerned appointing
authorities are at liberty to proceed with the process of recruitment
to the post of Librarian strictly in accordance with law.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No costs.
__________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
__________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 02.04.2026
ssp/szt
