Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 874
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J.
P. Prabhakar, S/o. P. Ravi – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Department of Law & Justice, Legislative – Respondent
IA No.1 OF 2025 IN WP NO. 13290 OF 2025 AND I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN WP No.14118 OF 2025
Decided on : 02-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jada Saravan Kumar
For the Respondent: Sri Pasal Ponna Rao
The court ruled that established policies do not limit the government's discretion in eligibility criteria for recruitment, and public interest prevails over individual claims for interim relief.
Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Teacher Recruitment Test (AP TRT) Rules, 2025 - G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 16.04.2011 - Notification No.1/Mega DSC-TRC-1/2025 - Petition against Notification alleging violation of TET scheduling and eligibility criteria - Court addressed the amendatory nature of guidelines allowing TET once a year and denied interim relief based on public interest - Petitioners failed to challenge fundamental Rules governing eligibility which invalidated their claims. (Paras 4, 12, 16, 20)
(B) Doctrine of legitimate expectation - Past practices do not hinder the authority’s discretion in determining eligibility criteria. (Paras 12, 16)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the Notification issued by the Andhra Pradesh government regarding teacher recruitment alleging that the TET was not conducted twice as per past policy, claiming arbitrary eligibility restrictions and insufficient preparation time.
Findings of Court:
The Notification was issued according to applicable recruitment rules and did not warrant judicial interference due to the larger public interest involved.
Issues: Whether the impugned Notification violated established policies and the implications of the legitimate expectation doctrine.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between the right to fair recruitment and the government’s policy discretion, highlighting the importance of public interest in education recruitment processes.
Result: Prayer for interim relief rejected; applications dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge notification validity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. request for interim relief by petitioners. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. state's response to petitions. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. rules for teacher recruitment established. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. guidelines and legal rights regarding tet. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. legitimate expectation doctrine discussed. (Para 16 , 18) |
| 7. public interest in selection process. (Para 19) |
| 8. court denies interim relief. (Para 20 , 21) |
ORDER:
1. These matters are taken up today for hearing by Way of House Motion through online.
2. ln both these writ petitions, the Petitioners Seek to assail the validity of Notification No.1/Mega DSC-TRC-1/2025, dated 20.04.2025 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, School Education Department, on identical grounds.
3. The grounds for attack are that-1) the impugned Notification was issued without conducting Teacher Elig'lbility Test (TET) twice in a year in terms of G.O.Ms.51, dated 16.04.2011, 2) the eligibility criteria does not extend permission to the final year students of D.EI.Ed. and B.Ed. to appear for the examination and 3) the impugned Notification provides only 45 days of preparation time to the applicants, Which iS COntrary tO the state's own policy of allowing 90 days of structured coaching under earlier recruitment cycles.
4. As an interim measure, the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions pray for grant of interim suspension/stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Notification.
5. Heard Sri Mulla Basha, Sri Prahas and Sri A.Sai Naveen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, and Smt. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader the State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds urged in the writ petitions, would submit that -
a) As per G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 16.04.2011, Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) has to be conducted every year twice for all persons who aspire to become teachers for classes 1 to VIIl in schools (Govt./ZP/MP/ Municipal/Pvtl Aided), but the State has failed to adhere tO the Same and in the year 2024, it was conducted only once and in the year 2025, it has not even been conducted.
b) It I'S further Submitted that earlier, during DSC-2018, the State has permitted the candidates of fl-nal year of D.El.Ed. and B.Ed. to appear for the examination, whereas the said approach has not been followed in the instant Mega DSC-2025, and the said action of the State in deviating from their earlier policy violates the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
c) It is also contended that the impugned Notification provides only 45 days of preparation time from the date of issue of Notification upto the date of examination, which is unreasonable and against the State's own initiative of offering 90 days' free coaching to the aspirants.It is, therefore, prayed to grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned Notification.
7. Per cot,fro, learned Special Government Pleader for the State would submit that -
a) The guidelines for conducting TET issued in G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 16.04.2011 have been subsequently amended and vide G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 17.03.2021, it was decided that the TET may be conducted once in year. It is further submitted that though as per G.O.Ms.No.23 dated 17.03.2021, conducting TET once in a year is sufficient, the State has conducted TET twice in the year 2024, i.e., in February and October, 2024.
b) So far as the contention of not providing 90 days time for preparation is concerned, it is submitted that there is no rule framed or prescribed by the State to that effect and even otherwise, the syllabus for the DSC-2025 has been notified and uploaded in the official website of the Department in the month of November, 2024 itself and the impugned Notification has been issued in the month of April, 2025, and thus, ample time has been provided to ttle aspirants for preparation. lt is further submitted that the State has right to determine or take a policy decision in the matter
