Telangana High Court
Ambernath, Mahaboobnagar Dist 27 ... vs Prl Secy, School Education Dept, ... on 25 November, 2022
1 RRN,J
Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4918 of 2017, 17901 of 2017
& 18197 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order since the issue involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, the relief sought being:
"... to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, (1) declaring the action of respondents in not finalising the Seniority List of teachers belonging to DSC 2002 as wholly illegal (2) the action of the respondents in regularising the petitioners' services from the date of their appointment without giving notional seniority as per merit list in terms of the statutory rules, is wholly illegal and consequently, direct the respondents to prepare the seniority list of DSC 2002 before effecting any promotions strictly as per merit list in terms of proviso to Rule 33(2) of A.P State and Subordinate Service Rules and grant all consequential benefits as per the said Rules (3) also direct the respondents to include the petitioners under the revised pension rules as made applicable
2 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 under the revised pension rules as made applicable to the other teachers of DSC 2002 in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Education (TG) appearing for the respondents. Perused the records.
3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P No. 4918 of 2017 are discussed hereunder.
4. It has been contended by the petitioners that they did Vidwan (Graduation in Hindi) and some of them did M.A in Hindi and got Teachers' Training Certificates form Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, recognised organisation for prosecuting higher studies in Hindi, from Gulbarga Centre, Karnataka State. The State Government issued a notification proposing to fill up various teacher posts including Hindi i.e the DSC 2002. As such, they have applied for Hindi Pandit Posts and secured good marks. After the ranking was prepared by the Selection Committee, on instructions 3 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 from the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dt.19.09.2002, their orders of appointment were withheld on the ground that the Teachers' Training Certificates acquired by them from the other centers of Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, are not acceptable. 4.1 It is further contended that the validity of certificates was required to be looked into only at the threshold and once the Hall-tickets are issued and the candidates are allowed to appear in the examination, the Authorities have no power to review its decision or withhold the order of appointment. It is not a case of suppression of fact. As such, they approached the Tribunal by filing O.A No. 5147 of 2002 and batch. Though the Tribunal was pleased to allow the O.A in the year 2004, the appointment orders were issued at the whims and fancies of the respondents not immediately complying the direction of the Tribunal, but the petitioners were given appointment orders in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively without there being any basis and in an arbitrary manner even though they all appeared for DSC 2002. 4.2 It is further contended that the petitioners are governed by A.P State Service and Subordinate Rules and as per proviso to 4 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 Rule 33(2) of the said rules, seniority has to be prepared strictly as per the above mentioned provision, namely on merits. In the instant case, the candidates who secured Teachers' Training Certificates from Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, were given order of appointments in the year 2002 itself even though they were less meritorious to the petitioners. Since the respondents arbitrarily withheld the appointments, the petitioners are entitled for seniority as per merit. Moreover, the candidates who are appointed in 2002 are being extended the benefit of pension, whereas the candidates who were appointed subsequent to 2004 are deprived of pensionary benefits on par with the candidates who are similarly situated and constitute one single homogenous class. 4.3 It is further contended that even though the petitioners belong to DSC 2002 and they have been working for more than a decade, no seniority list is finalized so far. In the year 2012, a provisional list was prepared and the petitioners submitted their objections for tampering with the merit list and placing them below the less meritorious candidates, but neither their objections were replied to nor was any action taken. After formation of the State of 5 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 Telangana, the candidates of DSC 2001 are getting promotions and very likely the candidates of DSC 2002 would also get promotions. The respondents even without finalising the seniority list and contrary to the merit list, are effecting promotions. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petitions.
5. Though these Writ Petitions were filed in the year 2017, no counter is filed by the respondents.
6. This Court on 21.02.2017 in W.P.M.P No. 5986 of 2017 in W.P No. 4918 of 2017 made it clear that "... in the event of DSC, 2002 persons succeed before this Court in the Writ Petitions pending before Division Bench and if this Court upholds the decision of the Tribunal, petitioners would be entitled to claim all benefits in lieu thereof and the same should be informed to all candidates to be promoted."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that in a matter with similar set of facts when fell for consideration before this Court in W.P No. 21193 of 2017 which was filed by the Government against the order passed by the 6 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 Tribunal in O.A No. 34 of 2015 dated 21.04.2016, the writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide orders dated 29.06.2017 confirming the order of the Tribunal for fixation of seniority by observing as follows:
"It is settled law that when recruitment has taken place and selection has 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 of point of time are entitled to benefit of seniority on par with their batch-mates.
We note, the Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Surendra Narayana Vs. State of Bihar and Blawant Singh Narwala Vs. State of Haryana and others.
In view of the facts recorded above and the settled law, we are of the considered opinion that there is no discrepancy in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal."
8. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.21701 and 22011 of 2011 had an occasion to discuss the case of Blawant 7 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 Singh Narwala Vs. State of Haryana and others and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:
"21. .....The Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the interlocutory stage, directed not to fill up 12 vacancies. The Appeals were disposed of by order dated 6.12.1999 reversing the decision of the High Court and dismissing the writ petitions filed before the High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Government requisitioned 37 posts, therefore, there was no bar on the power of the Commission to recommend 30 names. Pursuant to the said judgment, by order dated 26.5.2000, 13 persons were appointed as Principals. On their appointment, 13 persons submitted representations for fixing their seniority as per the merit list drawn by the Public Service Commission on 1.10.1993. They contended that but for the litigation, they would have been appointed along with other 16 candidates and as their selection was with regard to the vacancies notified in January, 1992, they should be given seniority above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. The State Government accepted their plea and fixed their positions immediately after the 16 candidates appointed from the same merit list and they were shown above the later appointees. The challenge made by the later appointees was rejected by the High Court."
9. In Surendra Narain Singh Vs State of Bihar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that candidates selected against earlier vacancies but could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, would have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies.
10. As this Court also dismissed similar writ petitions vide W.P No. 14941, 32880 and 32882 of 2014 vide orders dated 13.07.2022, filed by the Government against the O.A. order, which is in favour of the 8 RRN,J Common Order in WP Nos. 4918, 17901, 18197 of 2017 applicants therein. Therefore, the petitioners prayed to allow the present writ petitions.
11. This Court having considered the aforesaid submissions made by both the counsels is of the considered view that the issue is squarely covered by the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P No. 21193 of 2017 dated 29.06.2017, following the said orders, the present writ petitions are liable to be allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P No. 21193 of 2017 dated 29.06.2017. The order in W.P No. 21193 of 2017 dated 29.06.2017 applies mutatis mutandis to these present cases also.
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,J Date: 25.11.2022 BDR