The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. B. Vani, D/o. Chandra Sekhar

Telangana HC27 Jan 2014WP/35671/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal order directing the Government to consider a teacher's case under the 30% exclusive D.Ed. quota was dismissed. The Court held that since the petitioner possessed D.Ed. qualification, she is entitled to the reservation, and future vacancies must be filled.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is entitled to appointment against future vacancies arising in the same local unit as per the Presidential Order.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs B… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.35671 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

Though the interlocutory application is listed for hearing, at the request of learned counsel for parties, the main Writ Petition itself is being heard and disposed of by this order.

¶5

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 04.04.2012, passed in O.A.No.642 of 2012, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶6

The respondent – applicant appeared for Teachers’ Recruitment Test in the year 2008 for appointment to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (Telugu Medium) and secured 46 marks. She claims to be physically handicapped under the category of ‘Hearing Impaired’. She completed her Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) and is a local candidate of Warangal District.

¶7

Recruitment to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers during the relevant year was governed by the Andhra Pradesh Direct Recruitment for the posts of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2008 (for short,

¶8

‘the Rules’), which was subsequently amended by orders of the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.28, Education (Services – VI) Department, dated 29.01.2009. Proviso to Rule (7) of the aforesaid Rules, which is relevant for the purpose of disposal of this Writ Petition, reads as under:

¶9

“Provided that 30% of the Secondary Grade Teacher posts are reserved exclusively for the candidates with D.Ed qualification. Both B.Ed. and D.Ed qualification candidates are eligible for the balance 70% of the Secondary Grade Teacher posts and they will be selected on the basis of common merit in the DSC examination, duly following the other rules of recruitment as applicable.”

¶10

Though the respondent is possessing D.Ed. qualification and secured 46 marks in the recruitment test, she was not extended the benefit of appointment and a candidate who has secured less marks than her was selected under 30% exclusive quota meant for D.Ed. candidates. Aggrieved by the same, she approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, dated 04.04.2012, directed the petitioners to consider her case for appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher under 30% exclusive D.Ed. quota.

¶11

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, we have perused the material available on record.

¶12

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader

¶13

that the case of respondent was considered under 70% B.Ed. and D.Ed. Physically Handicapped (Hearing Impaired) quota, but as her impairedness was found to be less than the one required i.e., 70%, she was not selected in that category. It is further submitted that as her case was not considered under 70% B.Ed. and D.Ed. quota, she is not entitled for consideration under 30% D.Ed. quota.

¶14

As evident from the Rules, it is clear that 30% of the Secondary Grade Teacher posts are reserved exclusively for the candidates with D.Ed. qualification and both B.Ed. and D.Ed. qualified candidates are eligible for balance 70% of the posts and they will be selected basing on the common merit in D.S.C. examination, by duly following the other Rules and Regulations applicable. When it is not in dispute that respondent possesses D.Ed. qualification, there is no reason for not extending the benefit of appointment to her under 30% quota meant exclusively for D.Ed. candidates. Merely on the ground that her case was considered under 70% B.Ed. and D.Ed. quota as per the Rules, she cannot be deprived of reservation under 30% D.Ed. quota. As it is not in dispute that a candidate who has secured less marks than the respondent was selected under 30% quota, having regard to the proviso to Rule (7) of the Rules referred to above, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition so as to interfere with the

¶15

impugned order passed by the Tribunal. As it is not in dispute that every year vacancies will arise, if all the vacancies of 2008 are filled up, the respondent – applicant has to be appointed against any of the vacancy that arise in future in the same local unit, as per the Presidential Order.

¶16

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶17

____________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶18

__________________________________ JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶19

27^th January, 2014 MD

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.35671 OF 2012 (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy)

¶22

27^th January, 2014