Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH * * * *
W.P.Nos.: 23243 and 23487 of 2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 29.12.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may Yes/No be allowed to see the Judgments?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Yes/No marked to Law Reporters/Journals
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair Yes/No copy of the Judgment? __________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY + W.P.Nos.23243 and 23487 of 2025 % 29.12.2025 Between:
Kamireddy Bhavani ...Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt.Kavitha Gottipati and Sri G.V.S.Kishore Kumar Counsel for the Respondent(S): G.P. for Services -II Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred: 1 1984 (3) SCC 654
2 2021 (18) SCC 61
3 2023 SCC Online SC 724
4 2020 SCC Online ALL 848
5(2017) 3 SCC 467
6 (LL 2021 SC 102)
APHC010459002025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460]
AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 23243/2025 Between:
1. K AMIREDDY BHAVANI, D/O.K.VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC.UNEMPLOYEE, R/O.D.NO.4-21, REGULAPALEM VILLAGE, YELAMANCHILI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH ...PETITIONER AND
1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. T HE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH, D.NO.398/3 VIDYA BHAVAN, VENKATADRI TOWERS ATMAKUR VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
3. T HE CONVENOR, MEGA DSC-2025, THE ANDHRA PRADESH TEACHERS RECRUITMENT TEST (TRT), VIDYA BHAVAN, VENKATADRI TOWERS ATMAKUR VILLAGE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering case of petitioner for selection and appointment as School Assistant (Social Studies) despite she got qualified to the said post in pursuant to Notification No.01/Mega-DSC-TRC-1/2025 dated 20- 04-2025 of the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider case of petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of School Assistant (Social Studies) as per her merit in Mega DSC-2025 without reference to the order of prefererices chosen in the application ID No. MDSC0181990 in pursuant to the Notification No.01/Mega-DSC-TRC-2025 dated 20-04-2025 of the 2nd respondent, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to reserve one post of School Assistant (Social Studies) in favour of the petitioner in Visakhapatnam District in pursuant to the Notification No.01/Mega-DSC-TRC-2025 dated 20-04-2025 of the 2^^ respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of School Assistant (Social Studies) as per her merit in Mega DSC- 2025 without reference to the order of preferences chosen in the application ID No. MDSC0181990 in pursuant to the Notification No.OI/Mega-DSC-T RC- 2025 dated 20-04-2025 of the 2"^^ respondent, pending disposal of this writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated: 12.09.2025 in WP.NO.23243/2025 in the interest of justice and may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II WRIT PETITION NO: 23487/2025 Between:
1. B ANDEGIRI BASHIRUN, D/O PEDDA MURTHUJA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 8, KURUKUNDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518422.
2. C HOWDAVARAM SIVA KUMAR,, S/O. CHOWDAVARAM YANADAIAH AGED 34 YEARS, R/O.2/7 A, KORLAKUNTA, OBULAVARIPALLI MANDAL, KORLAKUNTA, CUDDAPAH, ANDHRA PRADESH,516108.
3. U ANIL KUMAR,, S/O UPPARI SUNKANNA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-49, PENCHIKALAPADU (VTC), GUDUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518467.
4. S MARUTHI PRASAD,, S/O S KULLAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 1-134, B P SIDDARAMPURAM, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515751.
5. . KOLIMI GHOUSE, , S/O KOLIMI BASHULLA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. 5/67, MUSLIM STREET, PATTIKONDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, AP, 518380.
6. . NEKKALA SIVARANJANI,, D/O NEKKALA VEERA KOTI BHIMESWARARAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2-32, SYAMALAMBHA STREET, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 533343.
7. M UDDAM NAGA JYOTHI,, C/O YALLA RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 25/419-1B- 827, NANDAMURI NAGAR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518501.
8. . KURUVA NATARAJU, , S/O KUMVA GIDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 2/82, KOTHAPALLI, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518380.
9. S UGALI DEVIBAI, , W/O PALUTHYA LAXMAN NAIK, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O H.NO. 1-31, LTHANDA, KURNOOL DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518216.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI.
2. T HE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
3. T HE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
4. T HE ANDHRA PRADESH DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE AP DSC 2025, , REP. BY ITS CONVENOR/CHAIRMAN, O/O COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AMARAVATI.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly one on the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not considering the petitioners selection to the posts of School Assistants SA in the AP MEGA DSC-2025 on the basis of merit- cum-roster, and instead giving precedence to the preferences exercised by the Petitioners at the time of notification and further issuing a PRESS RELEASE stating that the selection of candidates is based on their preferred options at the time of the notification despite the fact that separate application fee was collected for each post, separate exam was conducted for each post and separate merit list was prepared for each post and the same is contrary to the guideline no.24 clause (d) of the notification dt.20.04.2025 that allotment of posts to the selected candidates shall be made subject to merit cum roster, and vacancy position and in conflict with the settled proposition of law that merit cum roster is to be mandatorily followed in the public recruitment process and thereby ignoring the superior merit secured by the Petitioners in the School Assistant (SA) category, as blindfolded approach, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and it is consequently prayed to direct the Respondents, more particularly respondent no.4 to consider the case of petitioners for School Assistant posts based on their merit cum roster in terms of guideline 24 clause (d) of the notification dt.20.04.2025 and in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17) and Pradeep Jain v. Union of India (1984) 3 see 654) dehors the options preferred by the petitioners in the notification dt.20.04.2025 in the interests of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents, more particularly respondent no.4 to consider the case of petitioners for School Assistant posts based on their merit cum roster in terms of guideline 24 clause (d) of the notification dt.20.04.2025 and in terms of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex court in Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs State of Bihar, (2019) 20 SCC 17) & Pradeep Jain v. Union of India, (1984) 3 see 654) dehors the options preferred by the petitioners in the notification dt.20.04.2025 in the interests of Justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 12.9.2025 in WP.No.23487 in the interest of justice and may be pleased to pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to impleadthe Petitioners 1 to 6 herein/ proposed Respondents in the writ petition no. 23487 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G V S KISHORE KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.Nos.23243 and 23487 of 2025
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 counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, it is stated that in selection to the post of School Assistants, Petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.23487 of 2025 was selected for the post of SGT (Urdu Medium) in Municipal Corporation Schools in Kurnool District as it was her first preference. It is also admitted that Petitioner No.1 stood at Sl.No.1 in the merit list for the post of SA (NL) –Social Studies (Urdu Medium) in Government/Local Bodies, Kurnool. But the Petitioner was selected for the post of SGT as per the preference given by the Petitioner. As regards Petitioner No.2, it is stated that she was selected to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (NL) Zoology (English Medium) in A.P.Model School as that is her first preference in the application and for SA (NL) Biological Science, the Petitioner stood at Sl.No.1 in Government/Local Bodies, Kadapa. Similarly, Petitioner No.3 was selecte
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
