HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.30477 of 2016

ORDER:

The petitioner was selected to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (English) in Zone-VI along with other candidates; however, on account of delay occasioned on the part of respondent authorities with regard to eligibility or otherwise of candidates possessing “English as a third methodology” the petitioner was appointed on 21.09.2014; whereas other candidates who were selected were appointed on 15.06.2013. It is her grievance that the clarification with regard to qualification of the petitioner was decided in favour of the petitioner by the Selection Committee, and the petitioner cannot therefore be put to disadvantage of delayed appointment while his batchmates have been appointed much earlier. Furthermore, due to the delay in appointment, the petitioner is suffering recurring financial loss in terms of pay and allowances.

2. Heard Sri C.Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and also relies on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.21193 of 2017, dated 29.06.2017 wherein it was held as follows:

“It is settled law that when recruitment has taken place and selections have been finalized and there is a delay in issuance of the appointment orders to certain candidates due to administrative reasons or pendency of Court cases, such delay cannot be attributable to the candidates. It is settled law that such type of candidates, who are appointed at a later point of time, are entitled to the benefit of seniority on par with their batch-mates

4. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, this Court is of the considered view that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 21193 of 2017, dated 29.06.2017 is applicable to the facts of the case at hand.

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of by holding that the petitioner is entitled to reckoning of his date of appointment notionally from 15.06.2013. The 2^nd respondent shall accordingly pass appropriate orders within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not claim retrospective monetary benefits on account of this order, except for the notional benefits as directed above. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 02.07.2025 Smk