IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.38731 OF 2025

16.12.2025 Between:

Sabavath Latha …Petitioner A N D High Court for the State of Telangana, Rep. by its Registrar (Administration), Near Government City College, Madina, Charminar, Hyderabad and another …Respondents ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Kata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vivek Jain, learned Standing Counsel for the High Court for the respondents. Perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order passed by the respondents rejecting the candidature of the petitioner from being considered for appointment to the post of Computer Operator.

3. The reason assigned for rejection of candidature was of not having the requisite qualification as is required under the notification dated 02.01.2025, as on the date of the notification.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that one of the requisite qualifications of PGDCA ought to had been one which was completed before the notification was issued. The contention of the petitioner is that he had got the admission for the said course of PGDCA in the academic session 2023-2024. However, for reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, the examination of the said course was concluded only in May, 2025 and the results were declared on 06.06.2025. Meanwhile, however, the petitioner had been permitted to participate in the recruitment process. She also had been successful in the initial phases of selection process. However, at the time of verification of the certificates, it was found that on the date of notification i.e., 02.01.2025, she did not fulfil the requisite eligibility qualification and the candidature was rejected.

5. The issue involved in the said case of candidate not having the requisite qualification on the date of notification and acquiring the qualification before the completion of the selection process was discussed in the case of ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA vs. CHANDER SHEKHAR, (1997) 4 SCC 18 wherein in paragraphs 5 and 6 it has been held as under:

“5. The 33 respondents filed Civil Appeal No.5407 of 1992 in this Court, while the State of Jammu and Kashmir filed Civil Appeal No.5408 of 1982 questioning the decision of the Division Bench aforesaid. The appeals came up for hearing before a Bench comprising Dr. T.K. Thommen, V. Ramaswami and R.M. Sahai, JJ. There was a difference of opinion on one question though all the three learned judges agreed on the result. The majority (Dr. Thommen and V. Ramaswami, JJ) held that allowing the said 33 candidates to appear for interview was not impermissible. The learned Judges were of the opinion that by allowing the said persons to appear for the interview "the recruiting authority was able to get the best talents available. It was certainly in the public interest that the interview was made as broad-based as was possible on the basis of qualification". The learned Judges held that inasmuch as the 33 respondents (appellants before them) were qualified by the date of interview, though not by the date prescribed in the advertisement inviting applications, there was no illegality in allowing them to appear for the interview. R.M. Sahai, J., however, held that the said 33 candidates should not have been allowed to appear for the interview since they did not possess the requisite academic/technical qualifications by the prescribed date. Even so the learned Judge agreed with the majority that the seniority of the said 33 Candidates vis-à-vis’ the qualified candidates (who are placed at lower position in the Select List) need not be disturbed in the particular facts and circumstances of the case.

The Result was that all the three learned Judges allowed the appeals preferred by the 33 respondents and the State of Jammu and Kashmir and set aside the Judgment of the Division Bench. The present review peti