Telangana High Court
Knaveen vs District Education And 9 Others on 20 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2026
WRIT PETITION No.17466 OF 2017
Between:
K. Naveen
.. Petitioner/Party-in-person
AND
The District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District at
Hyderabad and 9 others
.. Respondents
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and in connection with the impugned proceedings Rc. No.5846/A4/2014, dated. 20.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, basing on which the Tribunal closed the C.A. No. 1759/2014 in O.A.No.11330/2009, 20.01.2015, by declaring them as illegal and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher in Ranga Reddy District pursuant to DSC 2008 Notification, by filling the 18 vacancies out of 78 notified vacancies of PET in any Roster points meant for 2 OC(General) i..е., 80, 82, 86 and 88 in accordance with his merit and roster, if necessary by modifying irregular appointments made in favour of less merit candidates keeping in view of the orders of Commissioner under Right to information vide Appeal No.10734/SIC- Dr.IA/2016, dt.18.05.2016, and to pass such...."
2. Heard Sri K. Naveen, party-in-person and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: -
(a) The 3rd respondent issued DSC-2008 notification inviting applications from eligible candidates for various teaching posts including, Physical Education Teachers. In Ranga Reddy district, a total of 78 posts of Physical Education Teachers have been notified. Being a local candidate from Ranga Reddy district, the petitioner appeared in the selection process for the post of Physical Education Teacher, i.e., the written examination, and secured a total of 44.50 with a district rank of 25.
(b) The respondents have made a selection for the post of PET on 16.10.2009; they initially decided to fill the 60 vacancies in the 1st batch from 16th Roster point to 72 (57+3) (excluding 3 backlog vacancies). The 3 backlog vacancies, i.e., 3 Roster point No.8 for ST(W) backlog, Roster point No.37 (Ex-
service man), and Roster point No.58 for ST(W), were not filled by the respondents. Only 57 vacancies have been filled by the respondents, leaving 3 backlog vacancies. The respondents notified a total of 78 vacancies for the post of Physical Education Teacher, but they have called only 60 candidates, leaving for counseling 18 leaving vacancies for PET. The respondents are bound to fill up the 78 vacancies in accordance with the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.161 Education (Ser.VI) Department, dated 06.12.2008.
(c) The petitioner, along with others, came within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of PET when the respondents filled the total of 78 vacancies. Hence, the petitioner along with others filed O.A.No.11330 of 2009 praying the Tribunal to declare that they are entitled for appointment to the post of P.E.Ts notified vacancies of 78 in DSC-2008 in Ranga Reddy District as per their merit, rank and roster as per General Rules with all consequential benefits by holding the action of the respondents in not publishing the selection list for total vacancies and publishing only 57 vacancies of P.E.Ts in DSC-2008 as illegal.
4
(d) The Tribunal, while allowing the O.A., on 22.03.2010, came to the conclusion that when there is a conflict between the guidelines issued and the relevant G.Os, the provisions shall prevail, i.e. rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 06.12.2008 will now prevail and in view of the above Rule-16 sub-rule 6 of G.O.Ms.No.161 prevails over the guidelines issued. Accordingly, the Tribunal has already decided in Ο.Α., No:12485/2009, dated 05.03.2010, declaring that, under Sub-Rule of Rule-16 issued in G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 06.12.2008, unfilled vacancies have to be filled up by considering the candidates in accordance with merit and roster, and issuing the necessary consequential posting order. In view of the above, the O.A.s are allowed, directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein for the 18 vacancies for Physical Education teachers, as the existing notified vacancies are 78 and counselling was conducted only for 60 vacancies. Therefore, 18 vacancies of PET shall be filled by considering the applicants herein in accordance with merit and roster provided they come within the zone of consideration. The whole exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
5
(e) When the respondents did not implement the orders in O.A.No.11330/2009, dt. 22.03.2010, the petitioner filed C.A.No.1759/2014 in Ο.Α.Νο.11330/2009, before the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal, after issuing notices in the C.A., the respondents issued speaking orders Proceedings Rc.No.5846/A4/2014, dated. 20.12.2014 of the DEO, Ranga Reddy, wherein it is stated that the applicant has got 44.5 marks with Rank 25, wherein the last selected candidate in the category of OC(G) has got 45 marks with rank 23, and as such, the case of the applicant cannot be considered for appointment. Based on the respondent's instructions, of the Tribunal closed C.A.No.1759/2014 on 20.01.2015.
4. The petitioner submits that the Tribunal, without verifying the records, closed the C.A. The Tribunal ought to have seen that while allowing the O.A., it specifically directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for Physical Education Teachers, 18 vacancies of PET shall be filled by considering the applicants in accordance with merit and roster and if they come within the zone of consideration. The whole exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks. The respondents did not produce any records pertaining to the non-filling of 18 vacancies as per the Roster cum merit records approved by the 6 District Selection Committee, as per G.O.Ms.No.26 dt.21.06.2010. They simply issued speaking orders vide proceedings dated. 20.12.2014, without placing any records regarding what steps respondents have taken for the implementation of Orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.11330 of 2009, for filling up of the remaining unfilled 18 vacancies for PET in Ranga Reddy District.
5. The petitioner further submits that the impugned willfull action of the respondents in not complying with the orders of the Tribunal is illegal, and even though he is fully eligible and qualified for the post of Physical Education teacher, due to the non-filling up of 18 vacancies notified, he lost his appointment. In the year 2010, the Government issued certain guidelines by way of G.O.Ms.No.26, dt:21.06.2010, permitting to complete the recruitment process for School Assistants/Physical Education Teachers/Language Pandits. But, the 1st respondent without following the above guidelines, issued an irregular appointment which is not in accordance with the Rules as confirmed by the Commissioner under Right to Information vide Appeal No. 10734/SIC-Dr.IA/2016, dated 18.05.2016, "that the Roster points are not mentioned in the District selection Committee approved list dated 23.04.2010 and 02.08.2010. The selection list provided by the Public 7 Information Officer is totally irregular and not transparent since no roster point is mentioned against the selected candidates by the then District Selection Committee."
6. The petitioner further submits that the speaking orders were not communicated to him, and the respondents served a copy of the Speaking orders proceedings, Rc.No.5846/A4/2014, dated.20.12.2014 at the time of closing of C.A.No.1759/2014 in O.A.No.11330/2009 on 20.01.2015. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Commissioner and sought information under RTI which was served on 18.05.2016. Hence, there is a delay in filling the above Writ Petition, which is neither will-full nor wanton. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed a counter stating that the Government in the G.O.Ms.No.159 Edn. (Ser. VI) Department, dated 05.12.2008, has permitted the Director of School Education to initiate the process of recruitment to fill up 50,063 sanctioned posts of various categories of teacher Posts during the year 2008-09 and permitted to notify these vacancies in DSC-2008 and also requested the Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad, to notify the number of vacancies, category-wise and District-wise separately. 8 Simultaneously, the Government have framed "The Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2008" and notified vide G.O.Ms.No.161 Edn. (Ser. VI) dated 06-12-2008.
8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that the Commissioner & Director of School Education keeping in view of the above said orders of the Government, issued DSC- 2008 Teachers Recruitment Notification on 06.12.2008, for filling up of various vacant teacher posts in ZP Schools, Government Schools under the control of District Educational Officer, Municipal Schools Under the control of Municipal Administration Department and Tribal Schools under the control of Tribal Welfare Department, duly inviting the application forms from the qualified and eligible candidates. 2826 various categories of teachers, posts are notified for the Ranga Reddy District, of which, 78 posts were notified for Physical Education Teacher, Telugu Medium.
9. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submit that the petitioner appeared in the DSC-2008 recruitment Test conducted by the Department, with Hall Ticket No. 15400100110 under OC -G category, and he got 44.5 marks with 25th rank. The Government in the G.O.Ms.No.112 9 Education dated.06.09.2009 has issued orders to complete the recruitment process to appoint eligible candidates for various categories of posts, except Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) posts, in clear vacancies only, subject to the number of vacancies notified in each category. In accordance with these orders, selections to the post of Physical Education Teacher, Telugu Medium, were made in the order of roster cum merit for (60) available clear vacancies (i.e 57 current + 3 backlog). Out of these (60) selections, only (57) appointments were made and for the remaining (03) vacancies i.e Roster point No.8 for ST(W)- backlog, Roster point No.37 for Ex-Ser (G) and Roster point No.58 for ST(W), were not filled as the eligible candidates were not available against these categories.
10. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submit that the petitioner and batch of candidates filed ΟΑ.No.11330/2009 before the Hon'ble APAT and the Tribunal passed the following order on 22.03.2010 along with batch no of O.A No.11266/2009:
"....In view of the above, the three O.As are allowed by directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants herein for Physical Education Teachers, 18 vacancies which are existing as notified vacancies are 78 and counseling was conducted only for 60 vacancies, and with respect to School Assistant (Physical science)-112 10 posts are notified and for 74 posts counseling was conducted. Therefore, 18 vacancies of PET and 38 vacancies of School Assistant (Physical Science) shall be filled up by considering the Applicants here in accordance with merit and roster and if they come within the zone of consideration. The whole exercise shall be completed by the Respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order The O.As are accordingly allowed. No costs"
11. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submit that the Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, through the Proc.Rc.No.513/RC-1/2010 Dt:09.04.2010 had clarified to take roster points under Physical Education Teacher category in DSC-2008 for the total number of notified posts and make appointments accordingly. In accordance with these orders, selections to the post of Physical Education Teacher (TM) were made in order of roster cum merit for the total number of notified posts, i.e (78), by reviewing the earlier (60) selections. Beyond the (57) earlier selections, the leftover candidates were provided with the appointment orders against the arising clear vacancies in two spells, i.e. 12.05.2010 & 04.11.2010, i.e (12 & 5 respectively). Out of notified (78) vacancies of Physical Education Teacher (TM), (74) vacancies were filled up and (04) vacancies were left 11 over due to non-availability of eligible candidates in their respective categories and the same has been informed to the petitioner vide DEO, Ranga Reddy Dist Proc.Rc.No.5846/A4/2014 Dated:20.12.2014 and by considering facts and genunity of the matter, the APAT has closed the C.A.No.1759/2014 in O.A.No.11330/2009 by its order dated 20.01.2015.
12. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submits that out of (78) notified posts, (23) posts (including (01) post meant for PHC-OH(G) and (01) for Ex-Servicemen as these two roster points were treated as OC-(G) as there is no provision for PHC candidates in the selections of P.E.Ts and there is no eligible candidate under Ex-Serviceman of PETs merit list were meant for OC-G category only. As per the recruitment rules, candidate belonging to SC, ST, BC, Women, and Ex-Servicemen must be considered for selection against open competition vacancies on the basis of per their merit. Accordingly, the top merit (23) candidates were selected in the OC(G) category. The last selected candidate in the OC-G category has 45 marks and rank 23rd , no other candidate was selected below the rank of the applicant in the OC-G category and no other candidate below this rank was selected in the OC- G category.
12
13. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submit that in the PETs merit list of DSC-2008, the petitioner stood at 25th rank with 44.5 marks, and with this, he was not in the selection zone of OC(G) category, and he was not eligible under the selection zone of other categories as he belongs to the OC community. The petitioner sought information regarding the selection of PETs under the RTI Act, and all the information sought was provided to him. In one of the case the Hon'ble Information Commission opined that the selection list provided by the public information officer is not transparent, as no roster point is mentioned for the selected candidates. The petitioner approached the Hon'ble APAT in several O.A's. A challenge was made to the selections of PETs for DSC-2008 in Ranga Reddy Dist. and all were dismissed by the APAT, finding no illegality in the selections.
14. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I further submit that the selections of PET's in DSC-2008 of Ranga Reddy District were made with Roster cum merit only, and in the selection lists approved by the District selection committee, the selection category (as per roster only) was mentioned against each selected candidate. The petitioner, having lost in all cases before the APAT, is again seeking to raise the settled issue. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 13
15. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that, as per G.O.Ms.No.112 Education dated 06.09.2009, permission to complete the recruitment process. But, the 1st respondent failed to follow the guidelines issued in the above G.O. As a matter of fact, the 1st respondent as per Rule 7 in the above G.O., ought to have constitute the District Level Committee for the purpose of preparing selection lists of teachers and conduct of counseling (1) District Collector Chairperson (2) Joint Collect
- Member and (3) District Educational Officer Member Secretary. As a matter of fact, the respondents failed to place the selection list of 78 persons approved by the District selection Committee. But the 1st respondent misled the Court by placing a wrong selection list of 78 persons, which was not approved by the District Selection Committee.
16. The petitioner further submits that the respondents, except for the provisional list of 57 persons have not placed any record of selection as per the Roster cum merit approved by the District Selection Committee and also failed to place the records how the selection was made to the 57 persons and also failed to place the record pertaining to the unfilled 3 backlog vacancies. The 1st respondent violating the orders of the Commissioner, made an irregular appointment of 13 candidates approved by the District Committee dated 14 23.04.2010 without any Roster points and selected less merit candidates who did not come within the zone of consideration. Hence, the 1st respondent violated the orders of the Tribunal and the directions of the Commissioner without following Roster points and also failed to place any record of Roster-cum- merit before this Court, approved by the District Committee as per the G.O.
17. The petitioner further submits that the respondents issued the Speaking orders dt. 20.12.2014, by misguiding the Tribunal, closed the C.A.No.1759/2014 in O.A.No.11330/2009 on 20.01.2015, which is confirmed by the Commissioner under Right to Information vide Appeal No. 10734/SIC-Dr. IA/2016, dt. 18.05.2016, the Roster points are not mentioned in the District selection Committee-approved list dated 23.04.2010 and 02.08.2010. The selection list provided by the Public Information Officer is irregular and not transparent, as no roster point is mentioned against the selected candidates by the then District Selection Committee. The respondents failed to implement the Memo No. 19738/PE.SER.II/A1/2010, dated 04.06.2010, pertaining to filling of vacancy of Ex-serviceman with Open Category and also failed to place any record pertaining to filling Ex-serviceman vacancy. If the respondents implemented the above memo dt.04.06.2010, the petitioner 15 would come within the zone of consideration. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT:
18. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.5846/A4/2014, dt.
20.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, i.e. District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District. The facts in this case are that initially, the petitioner approached the then A.P. Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.11330 of 2009. The Tribunal passed the common order in O.A. No.11266, 11330 and 11340 of 2009, which reads as follows:
"18. In view of the above, the three OAs are allowed by directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants herein for Physical Education Teachers, 18 vacancies which are existing as notified vacancies are 78 and counseling was conducted only for 60 vacancies, and with respect to school assistants (Physical Science) - 112 posts are notified and for 74 posts counseling was conducted.
Therefore, 18 vacancies of PET and 38 vacancies of school assistant (Physical Science) shall be filled up by considering the applicants herein in accordance with merit and roster and if they come within the zone of consideration. The whole exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order."16
19. The above-mentioned case was allowed on 22.03.2010. Though there is a direction to the authorities to complete the exercise within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, after receiving the said order, the petitioner remained silent till 2014. In 2014, the petitioner filed CA No.1759 of 2014 in OA No.11330 of 2009. The said CA was closed as follows:
"Learned GP has placed before this Tribunal the proceedings in Rc.No.5846/A4/2014, dated 20.12.2014 of DEO, Ranga Reddy wherein it is stated that the applicant has got 44.5 marks with rank 25. Whereas the last selected candidate in the category of OC (G) has got 45 marks with rank 23, and as such, the case of the applicant cannot be considered for appointment.
2. In view of the same as the orders of the Tribunal are complied with by the respondents, the CA is closed. The contemnors are discharged from the contempt and CA is closed."
20. If the above-mentioned order is observed, for non- implementation of the OA order, the petitioner filed the above CA, and the said CA was closed in view of compliance with the OA order shows that. A perusal of the CA order, no liberty was granted to the petitioner, who was told that if he has any grievance, he can approach the appropriate Forum. Once there is no liberty to the petitioner, he cannot challenge the said order. Not only that, the petitioner approached the APAT by 17 filing several OAs challenging the selection of PETs of DSC 2008 in Ranga Reddy District. However, all the OAs were dismissed by the Tribunal by observing that there is no illegality in the selection of PETs. The petitioner filed several OAs for the same relief; OA No.6794 of 2010 with CA No.938 of 2011, with VMA No.2516 of 2010 and OA No.5320 of 2010 with MA No.69 of 2011, with VMA No.2519 of 2010, dated 15.02.2012. In the above-mentioned cases, the following order is passed:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the foregoing reasons, there is no illegality. As such, the prayer sought by the applicant cannot be considered by this Tribunal. Hence, the two O.As stands disposed of. In view of this, CA and MA stand closed and VMAs are disposed of. "
21. Against the above cases, again the petitioner filed Review M.A No.906 of 2012 in O.A. No.6794 of 2010 with VMA No.2516 of 2010 dated 19.06.2012. The said review was closed as follows:
"There are no new grounds urged by the applicant for consideration of the Review M.A and there is no error apparent on the face of the record."
22. Again, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing another OA No.5858 of 2012 with MA No.2588 of 2012, and the same was dismissed on 20.09.2012 as follows:
18
"Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer sought by the applicant is not justified and not acceptable.
The OA is therefore, devoid of merits and hence dismissed. In view of the orders passed in the O.A., M.A. also stands dismissed.No costs."
23. Once again, the petitioner filed another OA No.2019 of 2014. Again the same was dismissed on 17.03.2015 as follows:
"Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the foregoing reasons, the O.A is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed."
24. It is not in disputed that in the year of 2014 itself the petitioner filed CA No.1759 of 2014 in OA No.11330 of 2009 and the said CA was closed with an observation that "Learned GP has placed before this Tribunal the proceedings in Rc.No.5846/A4/2014, dated 20.12.2014 of DEO, Ranga Reddy wherein it is stated that the applicant has got 44.5 marks with rank 25. Whereas the last selected candidate in the category of OC (G) has got 45 marks with rank 23, and as such, the case of the applicant cannot be considered for appointment." Again, the petitioner is questioning the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.5846/A4/2014, dt. 20.12.2014 issued by the 1st respondent, i.e. District Educational Officer, Ranga Reddy District. The very filing of the cases one after another shows 19 that the petitioner is habituated to filing several cases and wasting the prestigious time of this Court. Under the said circumstances, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Dated: 20.04.2026 BDR