Dismissed

Smt. M. Amrutha v. The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Telangana HC1 Jul 2025WP/9786/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single bench order closing a writ petition challenging non-selection as a School Assistant. The court held the rejection was correct based on overall graduation marks per G.O.Ms.No.25. It vacated an interim order allowing selection based on optional subject marks as the recruitment process was already completed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed and miscellaneous applications stand closed. Interim order dated 12.07.2019 vacated. No order as to costs.

Smt. M. Amrutha Vs The Telangana State Public… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 9786 oF 2019

¶7

Between:

¶8

Smt. M. Amrutha, Wo. Narsaiah Aged 38 years Rt/o H No^.l-10/3 Narsapur (p A) S. S. Tadvai Mandal Jayasankar Bhoopalapalii District

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 - The Telangana State.Publiq Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶12

The Government of Telangana, Represented by its principal Secretary School Education Department; Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶13

The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶14

The District Collector, Warangal (Urban) Warangat District

¶15

The District Educational Officer, (Urban District) Warangat (Urban) Warangal District

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction or more particularly one in the Nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing an impugned proceedings vide Memo No.832/Recruitm ent-ll4l211l dated 1 2_04.201 9 in nonselecting the petitioner as School Assistant post in subject of Social Studies Telugu Medium in the Agency area of Warangal District as illegal, highly discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust, unfair, untawful, unconstitutional, irrational, mockery, perverse and contrary to the law and against to the principles of Natural Justice and against to an Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and also against to a Catena of Judgments of an Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court

¶18

¶19

and consequen'y set aside the same and direct the reslondents to serect the Petitioner as schoor Assistanl in the subject of sociar stu,iies in Terugu Medium in the Agency Area of Warangal District.

¶20

IAN o: 10F 2019

¶21

petition under Sectior rhe arr dav t r ed n supporr :,';::ff I:r# jT; :i:: ; ,il::::il,:::i; of^.a' further proceedings incruding appointments of Schoor Assistants in the Agency Area in pursuance of the Notification No.52l201 z dated 21 .10.2017, pendrng disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

IA NO:20F 2019

¶23

petition under Secti th e a rr d a vi t r r e o i n s u p p ool : : ['r: ili:'" : il, :..::: il J,Jj:: ":: ::., .] suspend the impugned proceedihgs vide Memo No.g32l R3cruitment-r/ 4/ 2017 dated 12.O4.2019 in non_ selecting the petitioner as School Assistant post in subject of Sociar studies , in the Agencv area of warangal District, pending disposar ", ,n" *r,,t::":;,14edium

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner : SRI SODE VENKATESWARLU Counset for the Respondents No.1: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR (SC FOR TGPSC) Counsel for the Respondents No.2TO5 : ASST Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.9786 of 2Ol9

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

The petitioner is challenging the impugned proceedings vide Memo No. 832 / Recruttrnent-I / 4 / 20 17, dated 12.04.2O 19 in not selecting the petitioner as School Assistant (Social Studies) in the Agency area of Warangal District.

¶29

Heard Sri B.Arjun, learned counsel representing Sri Sode Venkatesu,arlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, iearned Standing Counsel for TGpSC for respondent No. 1 and learned Assistant Government pleader for Services I for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents issued Notification No.52 of 2OIZ for recruitment to the post of School Assistant (Social Studies). The petitioner, though eligible and having secured higher merit, was omitted from the provisional selection list, while less meritorious candidates were selected. She submitted a representation on 14.O2.2019, but no action was taken. She then filed W.p.Nos. 32h.and 3279 of 2O19, and this Court, uide order datecl

¶31

¶32

¶33

2 N8K,J W.P. No.97a6 of 2019

¶34

25.03.2019, directed the 1.t respondent t ) consider her representation within four weeks. However, the 1", respondent rejected her candidature by memo dated l2.t)4.2019 without proper consideration. Learned counsel for the 1>etitioner further submits that this Court uide interim order datt:d 12.O7.2079 in LA.Nos.7 and 2 of 2019 in W.P.No.9786 of 2019. directed that her case be considered based on the percer.tage secured in optional subjects, not the overall gradualion percentage Therefore, the petitioner prays to set aside r.he rnemo dated 12.04.2019 and to direct the respondents to consider her appointment as per the interim order dated Ti.O7.2019 passed by this Court in accordance with law.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel for TGRTC for Respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner does not possrrss tl-re minimum required percentage of marks in her acaderr ic career and is therefore ineligible. As per the order dated 25.0i1.2019 in W.P. Nos.3227 and 3279 ol 2019, Respondent No.1 considered her case and issued a memo dated 12.04.2019 stating that she secured only 44.62%, in her B.A., while the mLnimum marks required for SC/ ST/ BC/ differently-abled cancidates is 45%o as

¶36

NEKJ w.P. No 9785of2019

¶37

t I

¶38

per the notification. Hence, her candidature was rightly rejected. The allegation that less meritorious candidates were appointed is incorrect. He further submits that the recruitment was conducted in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.25, which specifies that the required percentage (50% or 45%o) pertains to the overall marks in Graduation or Post-Graduation, not just optional subjects. Thus, the petitioner's reliance on the interim order dated 12.O7 .2019 is untenable. He further submitted that the entire recruitment process was completed, and the final results were declared on 12.02.2019, and the unit list of selected candidates was already furnished to the Commissioner of School Education for necessary further action, whereas this Court passed interim orders in this writ petition on 12.O7.2019, i.e., nearly five months after the declaration of the final results. Therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

This Court, having considered the rival submissions made by both parties, is of the considered vievv that the 1,'t respondent has considered and rejected the petitioners representation vide memo dated 12.O4.2019 on the^ground that

¶40

NB(.I J'r'-P No,9786 of 201!,

¶41

¶42

..,|

¶43

the petitioner does not possess the requirecl pelcentage ol marks. Further, it may be noted that it is not possible to ca-lculate the minimum required 45o% marks based only on optional subjects, as this vvould be contrary to thc provisions of G.O.Ms.No.25, dated 1O. 1O.2017. Since the entire recruitment process has already been completed, con si<lering the petitioner's candidature based only on marks obtained in optional subjects would be contrary to the rul:s and the G.O Therefore, the interim order dated 12.O7.2019 in I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2Ol9 shall stand vacated

¶44

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. No order as to costs

¶45

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶46

¶47

SD/. B. REKHA RANI AI;SISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER

¶48

To,

¶49

1 One CC to SRI SODE VENKATESWARLU,^Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

2 One CC to SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR,^{(SC FOR TGPSC)} fOPUCl

¶51

3 Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l,^{High Court for the State of Telangana} tourl

¶52

4 Two CD Copies.

BSK BM rL

HIGH COURT

DATED:01 10712025

ORDER

..j..,'"
..t
0 ;' li[P 20A
l)

¶59

WP.No.9786 of 2019

¶60

CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS
/)
Y s
-'1 ,
.-t' &q
I

Smt. M. Amrutha v. The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. M. Amrutha v. The Telangana State Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bobby Ratandeep Vaddi Vs State of Telangana

Smt.M.Anuradha Vs v.Karuna

Smt. G.Tulasi Kumari Vs The State of Telangana and 4 Others

B.Ramulu Vs The Superintending Engineer

K. Ravinder Reddy Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 4 others

The Chief Executive, Nuclear Fuel Complex, Ecil, Hyderabad Vs Shri.L.Satyanarayana, Hyderabad