SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13621

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Aparesh Kumar Singh, CJ, G.M.Mohiuddin, J
P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University – Appellant
Versus
Ravi Gugulothu – Respondent
WRIT APPEAL Nos.284 of 2026|WRIT APPEAL Nos.285 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Surender Rao, A.Venkataramana
For the Respondents: V.Ramesh Babu, G.L.Narasimham, K.Shankara Narayana

A candidate who participates in a recruitment process with full knowledge of the evaluation criteria is estopped from challenging said criteria upon failure; furthermore, a 'preferable' qualification in a notification cannot be judicially elevated to a 'mandatory' condition precedent for eligibility.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Judicial review in selection matters - Candidates who participate in a selection process with full knowledge of the evaluation criteria, including allocation of marks for qualifications, cannot challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful. (Paras 20, 21)

(B) Recruitment Rules - Eligibility criteria - “Preferable” vs “Mandatory” - Knowledge of a regional language stipulated as “preferable” in a notification does not constitute a mandatory eligibility condition; subsequent administrative conditions for passing a language test do not retrospectively alter the eligibility threshold to invalidate merit-based selection. (Paras 16, 17)

(C) Appellate Jurisdiction - Authority of Court - High Court cannot create supernumerary posts or appoint second-ranked candidates upon equitable considerations when the primary selection process is found to be compliant with governing regulations. (Paras 24)

Facts of the case:
The University issued a notification for Assistant Professor posts, prescribing knowledge of the local language as “preferable.” The writ petitioners challenged the selection of the private respondents, contending that the language requirement was mandatory and that the evaluation process was flawed. The Single Judge allowed the petitions and directed the appointment of the petitioners. The University appealed.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the selection process strictly followed the governing Government Order. The term “preferable” did not make language knowledge a mandatory precondition. Candidates could not challenge the selection process after voluntarily participating and submitting self-assessment score cards. The direction to appoint the writ petitioners was legally unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the “preferable” language requirement was mandatory, if the selection process lacked transparency, and if the Court could direct the appointment of unsuccessful candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that terms of a notification govern the process and cannot be expanded by subsequent administrative conditionalities. Estoppel prevents unsuccessful candidates from challenging evaluation criteria to which they had already consented.

Result: Appeals allowed; the order of the Single Judge directing appointment of writ petitioners set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the writ appeals and background of the impugned common order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. factual context of the recruitment notification, evaluation criteria, and the initial grievance regarding the language requirement. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. summary of rival contentions regarding interpretation of 'preferable' vs 'mandatory' and procedural transparency. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
4. court's analysis of recruitment notification rules, the principle of estoppel, and the impropriety of judicial creation of posts. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. final outcome of the writ appeals setting aside the direction for appointment. (Para 26)

COMMON JUDGMENT

Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

2. These two writ appeals arise out of a common order dated 02.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.13507 of 2021 and 13420 of 2021. By the said common order, both the writ petitions were allowed directing the appellant-University to appoint the respondents (writ petitioners) as Assistant Professors in the faculty of Fishery Science, with notional seniority on par with the private respondents i.e., respondent No.3 in each appeal, while permitting the private respondents to continue in service.

3. Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the appellant; Sri V.Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in both the matters (writ petitioners in W.P.Nos.13420 and 13507 of 2021 respectively) and Sri G.L.Narasimham, learned counsel representing Dr. K.Shankara Narayana, learned counsel for respondent No.3 in both the matters and perused the record.

Factual matrix (in brief)

4. The appellant-University issued Advertisement No.01/RC/2020 dated 17.08.2020 inviting applications for various teaching posts, including seven posts of Assistant Professors in different disciplines of Fishery Science. The present controversy is confined to two posts, namely:

i) Assistant Professor in Fisheries Resource Management (FRM) – one post under Open Category (OC);

ii) Assistant Professor in Aquatic Environment Management (AEM) – one post under Open Category (OC).

5. The essential qualifications prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor were:

1. A Bachelor’s degree in Fishery Science.

2. Good academic record with M.F.Sc. degree with at least 70% marks or an equivalent grade in a ten point scale, wherever grading system is followed, at the Master's Degree level in the concerned subject from an Indian University or an equivalent degree from an accredited foreign university

3. Minimum marks required in PG degree would be 65% or equivalent grade for SC/ST/Differently-abled (VH/HH/OH differently-abled) candidates

4. A pass in the National Eligibility Test (NET) conducted by the ICAR/UGC/CSIR or similar test accredited by the UGC like SLET/SEF

5. NET is not required in case of the candidates possessing PhD that is acquired both by course work and research.

6. Knowledge of Telugu language is preferable.

6. The selection process was governed by G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 29.06.2019 issued by the Government of Telangana, adopting the UGC Revised Pay Scales, 2016. In terms thereof, no written examination was prescribed. The assessment of candidates was on a 100-point scale, comprising 80 marks for academic performance based on self-assessment as per Table 3A of the said G.O., taking into account graduation, post-graduation, Ph.D., NET, research publications, and teaching experience and 20 marks for interview, bifurcated into 10 marks for oral interview and 10 marks for teaching skills.

7. In response to the notification, 15 applications were received for the FRM post, out of which 14 candidates were found eligible and called for interview. For the AEM post, 12 applications were received, of which 9 candidates were found eli

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top