The court upheld the principle that candidates' eligibility should be evaluated based on merit aligned with previous judicial orders, emphasizing fairness and adherence to established criteria.

ORDER :

SUREPALLI NANDA, J.

Heard Sri Nayakawadi Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under:

“…to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS by declaring the Rc.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 wherein rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) (Telugu Medium T/M) pursuant to the DSC Notification 1998 though he secured 55 marks more than the cut-off marks prescribed in BC-B category is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (T/M) in terms of the Letter addressed by the 3^rd respondent vide Lr.No.98/A5/2019 dated 26.04.2023 by taking into consideration of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.No.144 of 2006 dated 04.12.2009 along with others in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.”

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner, who is qualified and eligible candidate, applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) in Telugu Medium under the DSC Notification, 1998. The petitioner herein secured 55 marks, which exceeds the cut-off marks of 54 for the BC-B (General) category. However, the respondents without considering the petitioner’s merit passed orders vide R.C.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 issuing appointment orders in favour of two other individuals and rejected the petitioner for the said recruitment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD

4. The relevant portion of the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Karimnagar vide R.C.No.98/A5/2019 dated 21.08.2022 addressed to the petitioner herein is extracted hereunder:

“This to inform you that the representation under reference 7^th cited along with the other references cited above, has been examined and it came to light that you secured only 55.00 marks, whereas the cut off marks are 57.5. In fact, the cut off marks were revised as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in C.C.(TR).No.2 of 2017, dated 5.9.2019 is 57.5. As per the revised cut off marks, your case does not come under the zone of consideration and as such representation submitted by you is hereby rejected.”

5. The relevant portion of the letter of the District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar vide Lr.No.98/A5/2019 dated 26.04.2023 addressed to the Director, School Education, Telangana, Hyderabad, in particular para Nos.5 and 6 are extracted hereunder:

“5. Further, I submit that, the G.O.Ms. No. 221 Dated 16.7.1994 was issued in erstwhile District depending on vacancies in the entire erstwhile district and the New Presidential Order is now in operation as per G.O. Ms. No. 128 Dated 30.06.2021 and vide G.O. Ms. No. 147 Dated 11.10.2016, District Educational Offices has been formed in New Districts and established on 11.10.2016 and the erstwhile Karimnagar District has been bifurcated into (7) parts i.e. Karimnagar, Jagtial, Peddapally, Rajanna Sircilla and part of Siddipet, Hanmakonda and Jayashankar Bhupalapally and Collectors have been also appointed in New Districts.

6. Since the DSC 1998 has happened in the year 1998 and it pertains to the entire erstw