2025 Supreme(AP) 1446

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
Kamireddy Bhavani - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
W.P.Nos.: 23243 and 23487 of 2025
Decided On : 29-12-2025

The court held that a rule giving finality to an applicant's pre-examination preference cannot override the constitutional mandate to select the most meritorious candidate for public employment, especially for teachers.

Headnote:(A) Andhra Pradesh Teacher Recruitment Test (AP TRT) Rules, 2025 - Rules 3 and 10 - Conflict between provisions - Rule 3(iii) states merit-cum-roster is the criteria for selection; Rule 10 states that candidates must indicate order of preference for posts at the time of application, which is final and binding - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 226, 309 - Challenge to selection process where candidates were denied appointment to the post of School Assistant despite higher merit, based solely on their initial preference for the post of Secondary Grade Teacher. (Paras 18-21, 23)

(B) Interpretation of Statutes - Conflict of provisions - When two provisions in a statute conflict, courts must interpret them in a manner that advances the dominant purpose of the legislation - Rule 10 must be read down to make it subordinate to the principle of merit in Rule 3. (Paras 24-26)

(C) Public Employment - Selection based on merit - Appointing less meritorious candidates over more meritorious ones violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - An uninformed preference expressed before results cannot be a ground to restrain a candidate from making an informed preference after results. (Paras 28-29, 34)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioners applied under a State notification for posts of School Assistants (SA) and Secondary Grade Teachers (SGT). They opted for SGT as their first preference. They secured higher marks and were placed higher in the merit list for SA posts. The Respondent-State, following Rule 10 of the AP TRT Rules, 2025, selected them only for the SGT post as per their initial preference, ignoring their superior merit for the SA post. The Petitioners challenged this action.

Findings of Court:
The court found a direct conflict between Rule 3 (merit-cum-roster) and Rule 10 (finality of preference). The dominant purpose of recruitment is to select the most meritorious candidates, especially for the post of teachers. Adhering strictly to an uninformed preference at the application stage frustrates this purpose. The court held that Rule 10 must be read down to allow candidates, after being shortlisted, to exercise an informed preference based on their merit rank. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointment as School Assistants based on their merit.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Respondents could rely on the candidate's initial preference order to deny them appointment to a higher post (SA) despite their superior merit, and how to reconcile the conflicting provisions of Rules 3 and 10 of the AP TRT Rules, 2025.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of merit must prevail over an uninformed preference expressed at the time of application. The court held that a provision that is anti-merit and prevents the selection of the most meritorious candidates for public employment must be read down to avoid violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, particularly for the recruitment of teachers.

Result: Writ Petitions allowed. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioners as per their merit rank for appointment to the post of School Assistant. The exercise to be completed within two months. No order as to costs. (Paras 42, 43)