Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Sri Nyapathy Vijay, J
Kamireddy Bhavani – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P.No: 23243/2025 | W.P.No: 23487/2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Public Recruitment
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Recruitment Regulations - The Andhra Pradesh Teacher Recruitment Test Rules, 2025 - Merit-cum-roster is the criterion for selections; the order of preference selected cannot override merit. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought appointment as School Assistants despite being assigned Secondary Grade Teacher posts based on their initial preferences, even though they were more meritorious. Respondents defended non-selection citing preference rules established under the recruitment guidelines.
Findings of Court:
Court ruled against the rigid application of preference that disadvantaged meritorious candidates; ordered a revision of selections based on merit.
Issues: Whether merit should override initial preferences in the recruitment process, and if the rigid enforcement of preferences violates constitutional principles of equality in employment.
Ratio Decidendi: Court asserted the paramount importance of merit in public service recruitment and held that preferences exercised pre-result cannot be absolute, allowing for adjustments based on merit to preserve fairness of the selection process.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; Respondents directed to consider Petitioners for appointment based on merit.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Smt.Kavitha Gottipati, Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar
For the Respondents: G.P. for Services -II
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners' qualifications not considered for selection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. respondents' reasons for selection process. (Para 6 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. merit over preferences in appointment. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. legal provisions governing recruitment. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. rules conflict on merit and preference. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. importance of merit in recruitment process. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. court's interpretation of recruitment rules. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 8. public interest in merit-based selection. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. merit principles must govern recruitment. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 10. advisability of polynomial adjustment in preferences. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 11. court's jurisdiction to address rule conflicts. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 12. court allows petitioners' claims based on merit. (Para 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 13. court grants relief to petitioners. (Para 42) |
COMMON ORDER:
In the present writ petitions, the Petitioners are questioning the non-consideration of their case for selection and appointment as School Assistants (SA) though they were qualified pursuant to notification No.01/Mega-DSC-TRC-1/2025 dated 20.04.2025 as illegal and arbitrary.
2. In these cases, after hearing the respective counsel at length, elaborate interim orders were passed directing the Respondents to consider the cases of the Petitioners for selection in the posts sought in this writ petition based on their merit. Questioning the same, Writ Appeals i.e W.A.Nos.1015 and 1016 of 2025 were filed by the Respondents and the same were disposed of on 16.09.2025. The interim orders were not interfered with.
3. Background facts: A notification being No.01/Mega-DSC- TRC-1/2025 dated 20.04.2025 was issued by Respondent No.2, wherein applications were invited for recruitment to the post of School Assistants (SA) and Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) under various managements and also for the Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs-Special Education), Secondary Grade Teachers (Special Education) and Physical Education Teachers (PET) in the department for the Welfare of Differently Abled Schools in the State.
4. The Petitioners having requisite qualifications appeared for the examination for the posts of School Assistant (SA) and Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT). In both the categories, the Petitioners stood for consideration for appointment as School Assistant (SA) and Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) as per the general merit list issued by the Respondents.
5. After certificate verification, the Petitioners were informed that as per the order of preferences opted, they are eligible for appointment as Secondary Grade Teachers only but not as School Assistants (SA). It is also stated that the post of School Assistant is a promotional post to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers and despite securing meritorious marks, the Petitioners are sought to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers only on the basis of preference given at the time of application. The process of selection and examination for School Assistant (SA) and Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT) are independent and not common and Petitioners had paid separate examination fee of Rs.750/- and therefore they are entitled to make a choice subsequently also. It is also stated that as per the guidelines 24(d) of the notification, the allotment is to be made on the basis of merit cum roster and vacancy position and merit being the criteria for the entire selection process could not be relegated in consequential for the appointments merely because preferences offered by the Petitioners at the time of application cannot be altered. It is further stated that by virtue of the procedure adopted by the Respondents, the less meritorious are sought to be appointed as School Assistants, while the Petitioners who are being appointed in the feeder category of SGT. It is stated that the same is irrational and that the Petitioners are entitled for appointment as School Assistant. Hence, the present writ petitions are filed.
6. In the counte
