Dismissed

B Surya Kumari v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2024WP/1974/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a writ petition challenging the minimum qualifying marks rule for an English proficiency test in teacher recruitment. Ruling that the petitioner appeared without protest and only challenged the process after failing, the Court held she waived her right to complain, dismissing the petition as without merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as without merit. No costs were awarded.

B Surya Kumari Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1974 OF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

B. Surya Kumari, D/o B. Veeraju, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Unemployed 25-535, VinukondaVari Street, Near Balaji Cheruvu, Kakinada^{Mandal,EastGodavari} District- 533001

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Department of School Education (Exams), Secretariat, Velagapuci,^Amaravathi.

¶12

Commissioner of School Education, School Education Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Andhra Pradesh

¶13

Convenor, Teacher Recruitment (TRT and TET cum TRT),^{SchoolEducation} Department, Andhra Pradesh

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more in^{thenatureofwritofmandamus} declaring the note (ii) of Rule 16 of Andhra Pradesh^{TeacherRecruitmentTestfor} the Post of Principals, Post-graduated teachers. Trained Graduate Teachers, Physical Education Teachers, Craft, Art and Music Teachers^{SchemeofSelection} Rules 2018, being “The Minimum qualifying marks of screening test (English language proficiency test) is OC/BC -60 marks and SC/ST/PH/Ex-Se^{rviceman-50”} marks,issued by the respondent No.1 vide GO MS.No.68^{dated26-10-2018,as} arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Second and Third Respondent to include the name of the petitioner in the General Merit List of Post Graduate Teacher (Non languages)Subje^ct Social studies.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to Pending disposal of the writ petition suspend the operation^{ofGeneralMerit} List for Post Graduate Teacher (Non Language), Subject:^{SocialStudiesissuedand}

¶18

uploaded by the Third Respondent pursuant to notification vide No.768/TRC-

¶19

^1/20t8-1, dt.26/10/2018 issued by the Second Respondent, as otherwise the P§titiorier would suffer grave and irreparable loss.

¶20

¶21

Cblinsel for the Petitioner: SRI P. VEERA REDDY for^{M/s.SODUMANVESHA}

¶22

Coorisel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: GP FOR SCHOOL^EDUCATION

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE &

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No. 1974 of SO 19

¶27

B. Surya Kumari, D/o. B. Veeraju, Aged about 39 years, Occ; Unemployed, S5-5-35, Vinukonda vari Street, Near Balaji Cheruvu, Kakinada Mandal, East Godavari District - 533 001.

¶28

... Petitioner

¶29

Vs.

¶30

State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Department of School Education (Exams), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati and two others.

¶31

... Respondents

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner ; Mr. P. Veera Reddy, Senior Counsel, appearing vice Mr. Sodum Anvesha Counsel for the Respondents : G.P. for School Education - R1 to R3

¶33

Dt.: 04.01.S0S4

¶34

PER DHmAJ Sr^H THAi^

¶35

An advertisement notification, dated S6.10.2018, came^tobe issued by the Commissioner of School Education, A.P., Ibrahimpatnam, inviting apphcations from ehgible candidates^inter

¶36

¶37

HCJ 8e RRR, J W.P.No.1974 of 2019

¶38

aJia for 60 posts of Post Graduate Teachers in A.P. Residential Schools. The petitioner, considering herself ehgible, had apphed for the same.

¶39

According to the advertisement notification and in particular Clause 18 thereof, it was clearly stated that the procedure^aswas envisaged in terms of G.O.Ms.No.68, School Education (Exams) Department, dated 26.10.2018, would be followed. By^virtueofthe aforesaid G.O., the Government prescribed the Rules for Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) to the posts of teachers in the Schools of Andhra Pradesh known as ‘the Andhra Pradesh Teacher Recruitment Test (TRT) for the Posts of Principals,^PostGraduate Teachers (PGTs), Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs), Physical Education Teachers (PETs), Craft, Art and Music Teachers Scheme ofSelection Rules, SO18”.

¶40

The candidates were accordingly advised to go through^the aforesaid G.O. before payment of fee and filling up the apphcation forms.

¶41

The procedure prescribed for selection was that the candidates had to take two tests i.e., Paper-I and Paper-II. Paper-I consisted of an Enghsh Language Proficiency Test, for which 100

¶42

3 HC J 8e RRR, J W.P.No.1974of 2019

¶43

marks had been prescribed, whereas, Paper-II also carried 100

¶44

marks.

¶45

The Notes (i) 8e (ii) appended to Rule 16 of the aforementioned Rules envisaged as under:

¶46

NOTE:

¶47

i) The Screening Test (English Language Proficiency Test) will be conducted for the apphcants of Principals, PGT (Non-Languages) and TGT (Non-Languages) for 100 marks,

¶48

ii) The minimum qualifying marks for Screening Test (Enghsh Language Proficiency Test) is OC/BC - 60 Marks and SC/ST/PH/ExServicemen-50 marks.”

¶49

The petitioner appeared in the Screening Test (Enghsh Language Proficiency Test) but could not secure the^minimum60 marks prescribed for OG/BC categories and could secure only 56 marks in the said proficiency test and in Paper-II, however, the petitioner secured 68.5 marks.

¶50

Having failed to notice her name in the merit hst, the petitioner has filed the present petition questioning the prescription of 60 marks for the OC/BG category candidates in the Enghsh Language Proficiency Test as being irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Gonstitution of India.

¶51

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶52

¶53

HCJ&RRR, J W.P.No.1974 of 2019

¶54

It is not denied that the petitioner has filed the present petition and challenges the terms and conditions of the advertisement notification based upon the Rules of selection prescribed and notified vide the G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 26.10.2018. The petitioner, even as per the advertisement notice, was obhged, in terms of Clause 18, to go through the terms and conditions of the selection procedure as prescribed under Rules before submitting the apphcation form and before depositing the fee in connection therewith. 7. This petition has been filed only after the petitioner^failedto make it in the merit fist. Law in this regard is no longer res integra. The petitioner must be deemed to have waived her right to challenge the selection process or the criteria for selection on the principle of waiver and acquiescence. In Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla^, it was held:

¶55

“24. Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination....”

¶56

(1986) Supp see 285

¶57

5 HC J & RBR, J W.P.No.1974of 2019

¶58

The same view was also reiterated in Madanlal Vs. State^of

¶59

Jammu and Kashmir^, wherein, it was held:

¶60

“9. ... The petitioners also appeared, at the oral^interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission^who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a^chanceto get themselves selected at the said oral interview.^Onlybecause they did not fmd themselves to have emerged successful^as a result of their combined performance both at written^testand oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is^{nowwellsettled} that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears^atthe interview, then, only because the result of the interview^isnot palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In^thecaseof Cm Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp^SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644 : AIR 1986 SC 1043] it has^been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges^ofthis Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he foimd that he would not^succeedin examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any rehef to such a petitioner.”

¶61

A similar view was also taken in Vijendra Kumar Verma^Vs

¶62

Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand and others®^andRamesh

¶63

Chandra Shah and others Vs Anil Joshi and others^.

¶64

2 (1995) 3 see 486

¶65

5(2011) 1 SCC 1.50 H2013) 11 SCC 309

¶66

¶67

HC J &? RRR, J W.P.No.1974 of 2019

¶68

For the reasons mentioned above and in view of the settled principles of law as discussed herein above, we hold that having taken part in the selection process with full knowledge^aboutthe

¶69

terms and conditions which were to govern the selection process,

¶70

the petitioner had waived his right to challenge either^thesaid terms and conditions or the selection process based thereupon.

¶71