Allowed

Secretary, Education Dept, Hyd and 2 Othrs v. Mohd Mahmood, Hyderabad and 5 Othrs

Telangana HC10 Jul 2023WP/30109/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the Tribunal order which had directed filling of posts by de-reserving SC/ST/BC vacancies. The court relied on a previous Division Bench judgment holding that such vacancies cannot be de-reserved.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Tribunal order dated 31.12.2013 in O.A. No. 12210 of 2009 set aside; no order as to costs.

Secretary, Education Dept, Hyd and 2 Othrs Vs Mohd… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^3s18 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TENTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY THREE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARRAO} WRIT PETITION NO:^{30109 0F 2011}

¶6

Between:

¶7

The Government of^{Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its secretary,Education} Department. Secretariat^{Buildings-,Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad'-}

¶8

Thi: Commissroner^{& Director of School Education, Government ot Anonra} Pradesh. HYderabad.

¶9

The Dist;ict'Educational^{Officer, Hyderabad District'}

...PETITIONERS

)

AND

Mohd Mahmood,^{S/o MohdShareef, Aged about 26 years,U.nemployee' R/o} Hn; 12-2-71BtA,^{Nanal Nagar, Mehidipatnam, Hyderabad -'1 '^}

¶14

Naseer Hussain^{Khan, S/o TaufeeqHussain(han} .Aged,aoout {!^Years' Unemployee, R/o.^{H.No.9-11-31312,Jamali Darwala, Golconda Manoal'} Hvderabad^-1.

¶15

I rtfbf,O Sf*riet,^{SloMohO.Hafeesuddin. aged abou1.29 years, Unemployee} - Rlo n ruo. g-11'3i312. Jamali Darwaia Golconda Mandal' ny9el?999 .': 4 M;hd os;;n, slo^{Mono iasna,Uneinployee.R/o H No '12-2-718lA'Nanal} Naoar Mehidioatnam, Hvderabad^-1

¶16

s nrl#, rtrl,"eo hti siiq,^{Sio Mirza Mahamood Ali Baig, UnemployeeR/o'} H.No 12:2-718lA, Nanal^{Nagar, Mehidipatnam,Hyderaba-d-1}

¶17

6TheAndhraPradeshAdministrativeTribunal,Rep.byitsReglstrar,Hurana Haveli. HYderabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated^{in the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate^{writ,orderor direction more particularly one in the} nature of wRlT oF^{CERTIoRARI and call for the records relating to and} connected with o.A^{No. '12210 0f 2009 0n the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh} Tribunal,Hyderabad,andtoquashorSetasidetheorderdated-31.12.2010in O.A. No. 12210^{o12009 by holding as erroneous and contrary to law'}

¶20

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011^{(WPMP.NO: 37313 OF20111}

¶21

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the cirr;umstancesstatedin} the affidavit^{fileri rn st pportof the oetition,the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspendtheoperationoftheordersdaled3l.l2.2Ol0ino.A,No-12210of2009 on the file of^{the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Tribunal, Hyderabad, pendingdisposal} of the Writ Pet;tion

¶22

Counsel for the^{Petitioners:GP FOR SERVICESI} Counsel for^{the Respondent Nos.l TO 3 & 5: SRI M'RAMGOPALRAO} Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.4& 6:} - The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶23

t t

¶24

THE HON^{,BLE SRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMARSHAVILI}

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON ,BLE SRI JUSTICE N RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION^{No.3O 1()9 0F 2011}

¶28

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Justice^{Abhinand Kumar Slavili)}

¶29

When the matter^{is taken up for hearing' the learned} Government^{Pleader for the petitionershad informed the Court} thattheissueraisedinthepresentWritPetitionissquarely covered by^{the order, dated' 28} 'O7^{'2010, passed by the Division} Bench of this^{Court in W.P.No 16O46of 2OlO' ln the instantcase'} the Tribunal^{inO.A.No' 12 2lO of2O09 vide orders' dated} 2a.tl.2}l3hasdirectedthepetitionerstohllupthepbstof Secondary^{Grade Teachers Urdu by de reservingthe vacancy} meant for SC,^{ST & BCs and the Division Bench of this Court in} W.P.No. 16O46^{of 2010,dated'28'O7'201O has held that the SC' ST} & BCs vacancies^{cannot be de reserved' Therefore'by following} the aforesaid^{order, thp presentWrit Petition is also deservedto be} allowed.

¶30

In view of the^{said submissions, this Court is of the} considered^{view that the Tribunalerred in directingthe petitioners} to de reserve^{the SC, ST & BC vacanciesand fill up the postby}

¶31

¶32

OC candidates. Thereforc. tlie Tribunal erred in allowing the O.A in favour of tlre lst respondcnt and the present Writ petition also deserves to be allorved lollowing the aforesaid order, dated 28.07 .2OlO, passed by r he Division Bench this Court in W.P.No.16046 of 201O.

¶33

Accordirrgly, the Wrrr Petition is allowed following the aforesaid orclc r, dated 28 .O7 .2OIO , passed by the Division Bench this Court in W.P.No.1604(r of 2O10, consequently , the Tribunal order, dated .28.11.2013 in O.A.No.822S of 2Ot3 is set aside. There shall bc no order as to costs.

¶34

Miscellancous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ petition shall stand closcd.

¶35

,That^{RuleNisr has beerr made} absolute as above. witness rHE HoN'BLE rH.i!!tE;-JUiiriE r)jJnr BHUyAN, on this M.NDAY, THE TENTH DAY oF JUL' TW;;#iIi*o AND TWENTY THREE

¶36

¶37

,,rRuE copy,,^{"itriEiE[+HiSlliJXX} secrro'rt/ornceR

¶38

] iffi ":ir?{}!y:f Ax?!^{?:?,'ffi ent'Se"creta riatB u ird ins s re ra nsa na,} "^{li,-rrr# t"r:;,':"fi;.:,rB:;ctoror SchoorEducat on Governmentor} g H5t iistR s ta re or re,a n sa n a I |-f f H fl ,'s. Jl',f,fi ia'".?i',['il n " ?^{gne CCto SR,} iv RdL,lr o. |^,//o CD Copies GOPAL RAO, Advocate IOPUCJ ],.SK v, $'r'J,% Yi' i': ;?sJ"""l',1,?, i ;i?;,;ir. r r. 20 1 0 pas s e d i n w. p. N o. 1 6 046 G.IP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010712023

ORDER

WP.No.30109 of 2011

c
,4= o
q
; tq lugzu] I
.-, /,,
r.y'

¶44

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.

¶45

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE GODA^RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^R.KANTHARAO

¶47

wRlT PETIION NO.1 6046 0F 20'10

¶48

ORDER:

¶49

(Per THE HON'BLE SBI JUSTICE G.RAGHURAM)

¶50

This Writ Petition is misconceived. The^petitioners applied to the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative^{Tribunal, Hyderabad (the Tribunal),} for a declai-ation that the order in G.O.[,1s.No.72^{Education (Services Vl)} Departlnent, dated 2.6.2008 and the amendmenl^rssued in G.O.Ms.No.74 Education (Services Vl) Department, dated 5.6,2008 by the Secretary to the Government, Educalion Department reserving all unfilled^{postsin favourof} BC (B) category candicjates beyond their^quola, is ahitary, illegal and violatrve of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution ol lndia; of^{Rule 22(2)(h)} (ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996; and lor a consequent direclion to the^respondents to consider the^{meril list} of^DSC 2006 while filling up the unfrlled posts reserved for SC, ST and BC categories.

¶51

Th: g.ievance of the^{petitioners/applicants} was in respect of the^posts of Secondary Grade ieachers^{(Urdu) notified} in^{DSC 2006-} lt^would appear that there were no eligible candidates belonging to the^{reservedcategories to} fill the roster poinls reserved lor SC, ST and BC(A), BC(C) and BC(D). lnitialiy, the Gcvernment issued G.O.[4s.No.72 Education^(ServtcesVl) Depa(ment, dated 2.6.2008 directing^lilling up of all the Secondary^Grade teachers (L.jrdu)^posts reserved^for SC and^{STcategories(lyingvacant due to} non'availabrlity of eligible^qualifying candrdates belonging to^{lhese reserved}

¶52

categories) by candidates belonging 1o BC(B) category There;rftef. the Government issued G O.Nls.No.74 EoLical on (Services Vl) Det)artment, dated 5.6.2008 thro',vnq open unfilled roster point vacancies earmarked for BC(A), BC(C) and BC(D) groups in favo,rr ol BC(B) candidates. lt \vas also decided herein that after all e igible 3C^(B) candidates are exhausted the balance vacancies should be filloc Lro by eligible OC candirrates in accordance with merit.

¶53

The Tribunal, on an analysis of the relevant provisions of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules 1!196. in^particular Rules 22(n) and 22(g) concluded righl y that without c.rnducting a limited depadmental examination to fill up the unfrlled reserved vacancies as^per th€ roster marntained under Rute 22 of these Rules. vacancies cannot be thro\r,rn open for general (unreserved category) candrdates and^quashed the orcjc(r oi the Government in G O.Ms.No.48 Educat orr Department, dated 27.11 2008, G.O.Ms.No.72 Education^(Seru ces Vrr Department, dated 2.6.20C8 and G.O.Ms.No.74 Educatiorr^(Services Vl) Department, dated 5.6.2008 anJ lett it open to the Governrnent to asceda:n whether the circums:ances contemplated by Bule 22(2)(h) ot A.P. State and Subordinate Service ?ules, 1996 existed as on the date of rssue of DSC 2006 notification and the.eafter on the basis of such as(.ertainmenl oi lacts directed the Government l'r take appropriate steps in exercise of the pov/ers ,Jnder the provrso to Rule 2:'(2)(g) of A.P. State and Subo.d nate Service Rules. 1996.

¶54

Learned counse for the petiii.r crs slrenuously conLer'oe{l that recruitment to other categories of School Assistants, P.E.Ts and Language Pandits have also taken place under thc orders of the Governmenl under G.O.lVs.No 72 Educatior (Services Vl) D€,patment. dated 2.6.2008 and G.O.lt'ls.No 74 ECucation^(Services Vll Deparlment. Oated 5.6.2008 and therefore the Government cannot drscrirninatc. This is a contention that merits no acceptance. The Government drd Dot drscrirnrnate. it uniformly violalerl the law in issuing the rmpugred orders. The learned Tribunal, rnvalidatec the Government Order at the if stance of lhe petitroners. Clearly and in view or !he analysis by the Tribunal w th which \i/e concir. the orders ol the Governn)ent

¶55

are invalid and inoperative being^{in vroiation} of^{Rules22 (h) and 22 (g) of} AP State and Subordinate^{Service Rules,1996. The Governmentorders} issued in exercise of the executive^{power of the Statewere inconsistentwith} the statutory Rules,^{must perish and wereaccordingly quashedby the} I ribunal rig htly.

¶56

On the aforesaid analysis.^{we find no infirmityin lhe impugned order of} the Andhra Pradesh Adminiskative^{Tribunal, Hyderabadin O.A.No.3993of} 2008 dalec 9.1.2009, warranting^Interference under^{Article 226 of the} Constitution ol^lndia.There are^{no merits in lhe writ petition.The writ petition} is drsmissed at the stage of admission.

Dt:28-07-2010

( GODA RAGHURAM, J )

( R,KANTHA RAO, J )

TNB

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE GODA^RAGHURAM AND THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE^{R,KANTHA BAO}

Secretary, Education Dept, Hyd and 2 Othrs v. Mohd Mahmood, Hyderabad and 5 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Secretary, Education Dept, Hyd and 2 Othrs v. Mohd Mahmood, Hyderabad and 5 Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apsrtc (Now Tsrtc) and 2 others Vs S.Bal Raj

Dr. Ganta Sathvika Reddy Vs Dr. D. Praveen Kumar

M.B.Rayudu Vs Vasu Gupta

The State of Telangana Vs Iqbal Ahmed, S/o. Mohd Abdul Ali

M.v.Narasa Das, Vs The State of Telangana

C. Sudershan, Nizamabad Dist. Vs Dbcwo, Nizamabad and 3 Ors.