Back
PULLA KARTHIK
G. Vinod – Appellant
Versus
Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board – Respondent
ORDER :
(Pulla Karthik, J.)
1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent No. 1 in not conducting Examination dated 01.08.2023 in Telugu language for the post of Art Teacher in Residential Educational Institutions Societies, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri Bhaglekar Akash Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nayakwadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for Services appearing for the second respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first respondent has issued notification No. 6/2023 dated 05.04.2023 inviting applications from eligible candidates, pursuant to which, the petitioner has applied for the post of Art Teacher, appeared for the examination conducted through online mode on 01.08.2023. Learned counsel has contended that though in the Notification it was categorically mentioned that the question paper is bilingual i.e. in English and Telugu, but the question paper did not contain the questions in Telugu language and only contained in English, contrary to the notification, due to which, the petitioner could not write the exam properly. Therefore,
The examination for the Art Teacher post must be conducted in both English and Telugu as per the notification, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural guidelines.
Recruitment authorities must adhere to their own notifications, and changing examination criteria post-commencement is impermissible, violating candidates' rights under Articles 14 and 16.
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial recruitment is upheld as a valid policy decision, not violating fundamental rights or being arbitrary.
The requirement of proficiency in Telugu for judicial positions is justified for efficient administration of justice and does not violate constitutional principles of equality.
Rule 12(1)(i) of Rules of 2006 prescribes that no person selected for appointment by direct recruitment shall be appointed unless appointing authority is satisfied that he possesses a good moral char....
The court affirmed the authority of recruitment committees to establish cut-off marks post-examination, provided it serves the objective of selecting qualified candidates.
Proficiency in Hindi or English cannot be adjudged through multiple choice questions, and no legal right accrued to demand a bilingual question paper.
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
