SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(AP) 805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Challa Gunaranjan, J.
S Rama Krishna, S/o. S.Peddappaiah - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No : 12437 of 2023
Decided On : 30-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri G V Shivaji
For the Respondent: GP for services III

Weightage marks for prior service should be considered cumulatively with exam scores; denial based on verification delays not caused by the candidate is arbitrary and illegal.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Writ of Mandamus - Denial of service weightage marks to the petitioner despite merit due to non-verification of service certificate is deemed illegal and arbitrary - Delay not attributable to petitioner should not penalize their opportunity for selection. - Court relies on precedent from W.P. No.19289 of 2020 for similar circumstances. (Paras 3, 4, 12, 14)

(B) Recruitment - Special Education - The court found the interpretation of requiring minimum qualifying marks before considering weightage marks to be irrational, indicating the need for a cumulative assessment of marks, including past service weightage. (Paras 12, 13)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner applied for the post of School Assistant under Notification No.768/TRC1/2018 but was not awarded service weightage marks due to a claimed delay in service certificate verification. Despite securing 49.5 marks, he argued that including weightage marks would meet the minimum requirement. Court found the delay due to circumstances out of petitioner's control. (Paras 1-14)

Findings of Court:
Court ruled that the delay in certificate verification should not impact the petitioner’s eligibility and directed the inclusion of weightage marks to determine selection. The petitioner should be considered for appointment if total marks meet the criteria. (Paras 12-15)

Issues: The court addressed whether the delay in verifying the genuineness of a service certificate should disqualify a candidate and how weightage marks are to be interpreted concerning minimum qualifying marks. (Paras 1-15)

Ratio Decidendi: Court held that weightage marks should be cumulative with the marks from the main examination and should not be denied based on a delay in verification not caused by the petitioner. Previous similar ruling provided a basis for this decision. (Paras 12-15)

Result: Writ petition allowed and directions issued for inclusion of weightage marks in the merit evaluation, leading to the possibility of selection. (Paras 15)

Table of Content
1. petition for mandamus regarding appointment consideration. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments on weightage marks and prior selections. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. analysis of eligibility and marks considerations. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
4. notification rules and verification processes. (Para 10 , 11)
5. court's rationale against strict timelines for document verification. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. order for selection based on adjusted marks. (Para 15)

ORDER :

Challa Gunaranjan, J.

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief :

“to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of School Assistant notified in Notification NO.768/TRC1/2018, dated 15.02.2019, though petitioner got merit marks and by denying service weightage marks to the petitioner only on the ground that the genuineness of service certificate about service particulars of the petitioner were not confirmed by the authorities and delay for 2 days, as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chandha and further action in not considering petitioner for appointment while considering similarly situated candidates as per orders of this Hon’ble Court in W. P. No.19289 of 2020, dated 13.07.2022, as arbitrary and to pass....”

2. Heard Sri G.V. Shivaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

3. Petitioner possess qualification of M.Com and Special B.Ed.(hearing impaired). He has been working as Junior Lecturer in Commerce at S.V. College for Deaf, which is under control of Tirumala Tirupati Deveasthanams (“T.T.D.”) since 17.08.2009. The said appointment is contractual in nature. Notification No.768/TRC-1/2018, dated 15.02.2019, came to be issued by 2nd respondent for recruitment to the post of School Assistants (Special Education) under Inclusive Education for Disabled at Secondary Stage (IEDSS) under the Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha (SMS). As per the said notification, the recruitment shall be through selection process consisting of written test and other criteria and for School a Assistant (Special Education), total marks prescribed are 100 for written test (Teacher Eligibility Test-cum-Teacher Recruitment Test) (TET-CUM- TRT). It also provided that 5 marks shall be awarded as weightage to Inclusive Education Resource Teachers (“IERTs”), who are working in Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. Subsequently, 1st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.31, School Education (Exams.) Department, dated 06.05.2019, amending Rule 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha (SMS) Scheme of Selection Rules, 2019 (for short, “the Rules, 2019”), inter alia, adding Note-V under Rule 6, by which, weightage marks have been extended to not only IERTs, but also IEDSS working in T.T.D. run institutions. Petitioner appeared for examination held on 31.05.2019. Later, candidates were called upon to upload service certificates from respective institutions for the purpose of verification and awarding weightage marks. Petitioner submitted service certificate, dated 14.10.2019, issued by the 5th respondent. The verification process was conducted by respondents, for which, petitioner was called upon to attend the process on 11.12.2019, on which date, the originals were submitted. The certificate produced by petitioner was sent for verification to ascertain the genuineness of the same. However, nothing has transpired thereafter despite repeated requests and follow-ups from the petitioner. As 4th respondent started to proceed with selection without taking into consideration the weightage marks, petitioner addressed e-mail, dated 03.07.2020, seeking some more time to follow-up the issue. Ultimately, petitioner could succeed to get necessary genuineness certificate be uploaded with 3rd respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top