Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
P.NAVEEN RAO, J.
M.Brahma Chary, S/o.Venkata Chary – Appellant
And
The State of Telangana, rep.by its Prl.Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.10170, 19127, 19230 & 19863 of 2019
Decided on : 07-04-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 226, 14, 16 and 309 - National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - Public Service Commission - Arbitrary exercise of power - Telangana State Public Service Commission issued notification calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Principal (School) in the schools run by the Social Welfare - Petitioners responded to this notification participated in recruitment process - They claimed to have passed main examination - Petitioners are challenging recruitment notification per-se and reasons assigned to reject candidature of petitioners for further selection process.
Finding of the Court: There was no surprise element for the petitioners to suddenly realize whole process is vitiated only when they were included in disqualified list and informed about their disqualification to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of Court - petitioners having participated in recruitment process with eyes wide open on eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification vis-a-vis eligibility criteria possessed by the petitioners.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for Telangana State Public Service Commission for Social Welfare Department, for Education Department and respondent-Residential Societies.
2. The Telangana State Public Service Commission issued notification No.29 of 2017 on 2.6.2017 calling for applications for recruitment to the post of Principal (School) in the schools run by the Social Welfare, Backward Classes Welfare, Minorities Welfare and Tribal Welfare, and Residential Educational Institutions Societies.
3. Petitioners responded to this notification and participated in the recruitment process. They claimed to have passed main examination. They were called for certificate verification. After verification of certificates, they were disqualified from further selection process. Hence, these writ petitions.
4. In W.P.No.10170 of 2019 petitioners are challenging the recruitment notification per-se and the reasons assigned to reject the candidature of the petitioners for further selection process. In W.P.Nos.19127, 19230 and 19863 of 2019 petitioners are challenging sub paragraph 4-‘B’ of the recruitment notification and rejection of their candidature by referring to experience gained by teaching to Degree college students and/or experience prior to Post Graduation qualification.
5. The personal particulars of the writ petitioner and reasons for rejection of the applications of petitioners is tabulated as under:
| Sl No. and W.P.No. | Name of the petitioner | Educational qualifications | Experience | Reasons for rejection |
| 1. WP No.10170/19 | 1) Brahmachary | B.Com., - 2002 B.Ed., - 2003 M.A., - 2012 | Worked as SGT from 09.06.2005 and promoted as HM of primary school having administrative duties | Administrative experience in primary school is not considered as valid Administrative experience. |
|
| 2) P.Sathish | B.A., - 2006 B.Ed., 2008 | Worked as Degree college lecturer for 5 | Teaching experience as Lecturer in degree |
|
|
| PG-MA – 2009 | years 16 days, and also worked as HM having admn.duties for a period of 3 years 11 days | college is not treated as valid teaching experience. |
|
| 3) G.Srimathi | BA – 2005 PG-MA – 2007 Ph.D - | Worked as Degree College lecturer cum vice principal for 3 years 3 days; worked as Contract residential teacher for a period of 5 years 7 months 12 days | administrative experience as Vice Principal is not considered as valid |
|
| 4) Ch.Ramesh | B.Sc.- 1992 B.Ed., - 1999 M.Ed., - 2007 | Worked as Jr.College Lecturer for 4 years and also worked as Lecturer (M.Ed.,) for about 9 years | Does not have administrative experience |
W.P.Nos.19127, 19230 and 19863 of 2019 :
5.1. The individual particulars of petitioners and reasons for rejection of their candidature are extracted in the table below:
| Sl No. and W.P.No. | Name of the petitioner | Educational qualifications | Experience | Reasons for rejection |
| 1.WP No.19127/19 | 1) T Karuna | M.Sc (Chemistry) B.Ed | Head Mistress: 9.3.2013 to 5.4.2017; Teaching Experience: Degree College Lecturer from 2002 to 2013 | Teaching experience in a Degree college is not valid. |
| 2. WP No.19230/19 | Gollena Mahesh | M.Sc (Botany) B.Ed | Degree College Lecturer from 2008 | Teaching Experience in Degree College can not be considered. No Administrative Experience |
| 3. WP No.19863/19 | Hanmanth Ashok | M.A (Arts) 2015 B.Ed | Worked as Post Graduation Teacher= 2.6.2007 to 2.6.2010; School Assistant= 6/2010 to 7/2012; Eng.College:2016- 2017; Head Master: 6/2012 to 4/2016 | Petitioner secured Post Graduation in 2015. Teaching Experience prior to 2015 can not be counted. B.Ed |
petitioners having participated in the recruitment process with eyes wide open on the eligibility criteria prescribed in the recruitment notification vis-a-vis the eligibility criteria possessed by t....
The employer's specified eligibility criteria for a position must be strictly followed, and the court's scope of judicial review in such matters is limited.
Candidates participating in a selection process cannot challenge the process or regulations post-selection, establishing a principle of acquiescence in recruitment law.
The court upheld the application of the Recruitment Rules, 2025 over previous rules and confirmed judicial deference to executive policy decisions in educational recruitment without breaching rights.
The court emphasized the principle of estoppel and upheld the change in policy regarding eligibility criteria and the prerogative of the selection committee to declare the cut off mark in the CBT for....
Eligibility qualifications for recruitment must be assessed based on the last date for application submission unless specified otherwise, rejecting the notion of a cut-off date.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
