Adiandhra Ramanjaneyulu, Vs .The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE O F ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCA T ION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGA P UDI, AMRAVATHI, G UNTUR DISTRICT. .

¶12

THE ANDHRA PRADESH SARVA SIKHA ABHYAN, R EP. BY COMMISS I ONER AND DIRECTOR OF SC H OOL EDUCATION F IT EX-OFFICIO PROJECT DIREC T OR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMIS S IONER AND DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, G OVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRA D ESH MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

2

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

3

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.6884 of 2024

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

The present writ petition is filed declaring the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner for the post of PGTTelugu in Zone-IV in spite of the fact that the he was selected in the redrawn selection list, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶27

As per the sanction of teachers to the Model schools in Phase-I, a notification for recruitment to the post of Principals, Postgraduate and Trained Graduate teachers was issued in 2012 and accordingly, the respondents have finalized the selection list and published on 23.01.2015. As the petitioner is eligible for the post of PGT-Telugu in Zone-IV, he appeared for the written examination and secured 55.5 marks and he was assigned a rank of 432 as he belongs to SC-G category. Guidelines for selection was issued under G.O.Ms.No.25, Education (SE-PROG.I) Department, dated 04.04.2013 and no cut off marks were prescribed for selecting the candidates. As per para-11(c) of the

¶28

4

¶29

guidelines, (i) the provisional list contains candidate who did not attend for verification of certificates (ii) candidate who failed to produce original certificates (iii) inclusion of a candidate in the provisional list of for more than one category.

¶30

When there are certain discrepancies in the final selection list dated 23.01.2015, certain candidates have approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9873 of 2025 and batch and the said batch of writ petitions were disposed of remanding the matter to the authorities to redraw the selections. Accordingly, the respondent authorities have redrawn the selections and according to the redrawn, the selections have made.

¶31

In one of the candidates Mr. M.Girisiva Sadgurudu was also selected in the redrawn selections but he was not given appointment order. Therefore, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.45455 of 2018 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 29.02.2020. Accordingly, he was considered and appointed. As the petitioner is also similarly situated, immediately he made a request to the respondents by way of a representation on 30.01.2024. As the petitioner was included in the redrawn selection list, his case also may be considered in terms of the

¶32

5

¶33

orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.45455 of 2018. However, as the said representation was not considered, the petitioner has constrained to file the present writ petition.

¶34

The respondents have filed their counter. In fact, in the counter they have admitted about the directions issued by this Court while disposing of the batch of writ petitions and accordingly, they have redrawn the selections and appointments were made based on the said redrawn list. But, in the instant case, as the petitioner has not approached the authorities for consideration of his case as per redrawn selection list, he cannot rely on the orders passed in the case of M.Girisiva Sadgurudu where he approached the Court immediately after the redrawn selections and as directed by this Court, his case was considered. But in the instant case, the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of 10 years. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief.

¶35

Based on the above averments, learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds. The first ground is that subsequent to the selections after redrawn list, the

¶36

6

¶37

selections were completed and the unfilled vacancies were carry forwarded to the next DSC. He further contended that selections were also made in 2019 and that no posts were available pertaining to DSC-2012. The second ground is that though the respondents have redrawn the selections as directed by this Court, the petitioner has not made any request for consideration of his case as per the redrawn selections and he approached this Court after lapse of 10 years. On the ground of laches itself he is not entitled for consideration. Further, the learned Government Pleader has also placed reliance on the orders passed by the competent authority on 27.03.2024, wherein the authorities have considered the request made by the petitioner and rejected his claim. The said orders were also not assailed before this Court.

¶38

Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there are some laches on part of the petitioner, as far as non-availability of the posts either in the rejection order or in the counter, the respondents have not stated nothing. Hence, he made a request to consider the case of the petitioner if any vacancies are available pertaining to the DSC-2012 notification based on the redrawn selection list.

¶39

7

¶40

Considering the said submissions, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents if at all any vacancies are available pertaining to the DSC-2012 notification, the petitioner’s case may be considered based on the redrawn selections. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

JUSTICE D.RAMESH

Date: 27.01.2026 Ivd

8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH