The court held that knowledge of Telugu, listed as 'preferable' in the advertisement, effectively became mandatory due to the conditional appointment, highlighting the importance of adherence to specified qualifications in public employment.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The grievance of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that they applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the 2^nd respondent-P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University; and an essential condition to be met by the candidates is that they should possess knowledge of Telugu, however, the 2^nd respondent, without preparing the merit list, selected the candidates belonging to Karnataka,having no demonstrable Telugu knowledge. The petitioners therefore assail the selection and appointment of 3^rd respondents (in both the writ petitions) as illegal and arbitrary.

1.1 In view of the commonality of grievance, the writ petitions are analogously heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order. For the sake of discussion, the averments in W.P.No.13507 of 2021 are taken.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit in W.P.No.13507 of 2021, are that the 2nd respondent-P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University issued Advertisement dated 17.08.2020, notifying the post of Assistant Professor (Aquatic Environment Management) earmarked for the OC category. The prescribed qualifications required a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Fishery Science, with a minimum of 70% marks (or 65% for SC/ST candidates), a pass in the National Eligibility Test (NET), and listed knowledge of Telugu as "preferable." The petitioner, holding a B.F.Sc. with 69.2%, an M.F.Sc. with 73.13%, and NET qualification, and having studied 10th class in Telugu medium, and working as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis since 25.11.2017, submitted his application on 14.09.2020. He was subsequently called for an interview by a Call letter dated 08.04.2021, which he attended on 16.04.2021. However, the petitioner states that the selection committee without preparing a merit list, proceeded to directly issue the appointment order to the third respondent on 31.05.2021.

2.1 The petitioner contends that the third respondent, a native of Somadevarahatti Village, Vijayapur Dist., Karnataka, does not know Telugu language, which is mandatory for working with local farmers and staff. It is also contended that the respondent University in a notification dated 17.03.2018 made passing a Telugu test, within three years, and such a condition was applicable only if no local candidates were available. The petitioner contends that the selection committee, influenced by Dean Dr. S.T. Viroji Rao—who is from Maharashtra and has ties to a Karnataka university—predetermined the outcome to favor a candidate from his region. It is also contended that the committee improperly awarded marks for a Ph.D. even though it was not a requisite qualification, thereby skewing the merit in favor of the third respondent. The petitioner contends that granting the third respondent a conditional appointment, requiring him to pass the Telugu language test conducted by the TSPSC within three years of joining, is an illegal relaxation when a fully qualified local candidate like himself was available. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondent-University to appoint him by quashing the appointment of third respondent.

3. The 2nd Respondent-University filed counter affidavit contending that the entire recruitment process was conducted with transparency and in strict adherence to the regulations. It is contended that the selection was a merit- based, nation-wide competition as mandated by law.It is contended that in response to the Notification dated 17.08.2020, for one post of Assistant Professor in Aquatic Environment Management under the Open Category