Allowed

V. Anil Kumar, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC2 Apr 2026WA/232/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeals by meritorious candidates and TGPSC against a Single Judge direction to reconsider rejected Librarian candidates whose degrees were obtained via distance mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University through Telangana study centres. The Division Bench held such degrees invalid under the UGC territorial-jurisdiction notice incorporated in the notification, rejected the discrimination/negative

What did the court decide?

Common order dated 12.12.2025 in W.P.Nos.25531, 25837 and 24496 of 2024 set aside; writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; TGPSC free to proceed with recruitment per law; no costs.

V. Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

[³⁴⁸⁸ I

¶4

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE NOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

Nos.f76 1 1

259 AND 2026

WA.NO: 76 0F 2026

Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 1 212025 in W.P.No.25531 of 2O24 on the file of the High Court.

¶12

Between:

¶13

V il Kumar, S/o. V. Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, RIo. H.No.g-6-345, r, Karimnagar-505001, Telangana

¶14

A. ia, D/o. Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No.7-g3, polasa Vi ,^{Jagitial (M) and District}

¶15

D. y, S/o. D. Komalreddy, Aged about 31 years, R/o. H.No.1-g3, ipalli,Veenavanka, Karimnagar

¶16

Sameera Noorin, D/o. ft/ohd. Madar Saheb, Aged about 26 years, Rl/o. H 1 -7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalapally68

¶17

M. Nagesh Kumar, S/o.Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, Ftto.g-1-114, Mai ypally, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy

¶18

K. ran Kumar, S/o.Gopal, Aged about 40 years, FUo.H.No.1-3-12Ot1 Bhongir (M), YadadriBhongiri District Telangana-SOgl 16

¶19

ka, D/o. Mahabood, Aged about 27 years, R/o. H.No.1-3-BAO0Z, Banjara H Bhongir, Yadadri district, Telangana-S081 16.

¶20

8.8 D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Malyal (V), Echoda

¶21

(M), bad District, Telangana-5O4307

¶22

...APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT Nos.S TO 11 & 1i

¶23

AND

¶24

S of Telangana, Represented by its prl. Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶25

2- Telangana State Public Service commission, Rep by its secretary, Masab Tank Hyderabad

¶26

¶27

3.CommissioneroflntermediateEducation,GovernmentofTelangana - 311"ff33,:.., of rechnical^{Education,Governmentof relanganaHvderabad'} ...RESPONOENTS/RESPON^DENTS

¶28

A.Vijay'achandra^{Reddy,S/o. Adi Reddy Aged 31 Years OccuUnemployee} ,l

¶29

R/o H.l\o.7165i^{Mankimmathota Karimnagar KarimnagarDistrict} -.

¶30

6.TNag;rra.|u,S/os'ini,"'Aged34Yearsg-CgoccuUnemployeeRUoNavipet Nizamabad^District

¶31

M Chirrneshwar,^{s/o Bhumaiah Aged35 Years BCB OccuunemployeeRl/o} H.No.ut631lf^{f{agampetMupkalMandal NizamabadDistrict}

¶32

S.ASaiSujitReddy'S/oSudhakarReddyAged34YearsEWSoccu unemploy""^{nyo ri.iio.g11 g 1 BhagatnagarKarimnagar KarimnagarDistrict}

¶33

1. J Aravind,^{s/o Narayana Aged gi veals BCA occu Unemployee R/o H'No'} 167 V;rllabhapuram^{Cnir"ri"Mandal Suryapet District'}

¶34

l0.P.Sadanandam,S/o.Rajaiah(R.l0NotnecessarypartyinthisW.A)

¶35

...RESPONDE^{NTSfWRIT PETITIONERS}

¶36

NO:1 OF

¶37

Petition under^{Section151'cPc praying that in the circumstances statedin} theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto suspend^{the orderspassed,in w.P. No. 25531 of 2024' Dated 12-12-2025'}

¶38

CounselfortheAppellants:SRIG.VIDYASAGAR,SENIoRCoUNSELFoR SRI( SAI^{PRASEN GUNDAVARAM} CounsetfortheRespondentNos'1'3&4:SRIGPRASANTH'AGPFOR SERVICES.I

¶39

CounselfortheRespondentNo.2:SRIP.S.RAJASEKHAR,ScFoRTGPSC ;;;;;i^{ion the d""iona"ntNos'5 r,o e: sRl M'V'RAMA RAo} Counsel forthe^{Respondent No'10:--}

¶40

IIYA NO: {85^{OF 2026}

¶41

Writ.Appeat-underclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredAgainstorder Dated 12t1'.r-t2025^{in w.p.No.244960f 2024, on the fite of the High court.}

¶42

Between:

¶43

p.sad;rnandam, s/o. Raiaiah, Age 36^years, occ^{Un-Employee, R/o} Akken,apally Village,^{Nan gnoorMandal, SiddipetDistrict'}

¶44

...APPELLANT/ 12th RESPONDENT^{IN W.P.NO.24r';96AF 2024}

¶45

¶46

AND

¶47

The State of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, TechnicalEducation} Department,^{Secretariat, Hyderabad-}

¶48

The Telangana^{State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary'} Prathibha Bhavan,^{MJ Road,Nampally, Hyderabad'}

¶49

3- The Commissioner^{of TechnicalEducation, Department of Technical} Education, HYderabad,^Telangana-

¶50

The Commissioner^{of lntennediate Education,Board oflntermediate,} Nampally, HYderabad.

¶51

V.Rnit Kumar,^{S/o. V.Ravinder,Aged about 34 years,FUo. H-No.9-6-345,} Ramnagar,^{Karimnagar- 505001,Telangana'}

¶52

A. Soni-a,^{D/o. Gangaram, Agedabout 24 years,R/o. H.No-7-83, Polasa} Village, Jagitial^{(trd) andJagitial District'}

¶53

O.XonOatreOdy,^{S/o. D.Komalreddy,Aged about 31 years, R/o.H.No.1-83,} Deshaipalli,^{Veenavanka, Karimnagar.}

¶54

Mohd. Sameera^{Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Mada Saheb, Agedabout 26 years,} R/o.H.No.1^{-77t1, Gorlavedu(V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpally-} 5061 68.

¶55

g. M.Nagesh Kumar, S/o. Nagappa, Aged about 35^{years, R/o. 8-1-114,} Mailareddypally,^{Rajendranagar,Ranga Reddy'}

¶56

lO.K.Kiran Kumar,^{Slo. Gopal,Aged about 40 years, Fl/o.H.No-1-3-12011,} Kisannagar, Bhongir(M),^{YadadriBhongiri District, Telangana- 508116.}

¶57

1 1 . Maleka, b/o.^{Mahibood,Aged about 27 years,R/o. H-No-1-3-BAO07, Banjara} Hills, Bhongir,^{YadadriBhongirDistrict,Telangana- 508116.}

¶58

12.B.Mamatha-,^{D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o- Malyal (V), Echoda} (M), Adilabad District,^{Telangana- 504307 '}

¶59

(Respondents No.S to^{12 not necessaryparties)}

¶60

...RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS

¶61

l3.Naseema Sultana,^{Dto. Mohd. Fakirahmed, Aged 39 years, Occ. Un-}

¶62

employee, No. 2-1-109lAl,^{Afzal Nagar, Peddapalle(V and M), karirnnagar} District.

¶63

14.Shaik lshrath^{Sulthana,Wo. Md.Saleem Pasha, Aged 36 years, Occ - Un-} ' employee, R/o. Flat No.1O4, Akhila- Residency, Sriram Nagar Road^No.3, Khammam Urban, Khammam^District-

¶64

l$.Mohammad^{Zareena,W/o.Mohammadlmam,Aged 36 years, Occ . Un-} . employee, Ryo.. H.No.14-7-25, Pandurangiapuram, tsallepalle (v&M), Khammam Ufian,^{Khammam District-}

¶65

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.24496 OF 2024

¶66

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶67

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated in the} affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend}

¶68

¶69

the operation of the common^{orders passed in W.P.No.24496of 2O24dated} 1211212024 p,:nding disposal of the^{Writ Appeal.}

¶70

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI M.SURENDERRAO, SENIORCOUNSELFOR} SRI RAMA RAO KILARU Counsel for the Respondent Nos.I,3^{& 4: SRI G.PRASANTH,AGP FOR}

¶71

SERVICES-I

¶72

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI^{P.S.RAJASEKHAR,SC FOR TGPSC} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.13: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.S TO 12, 14 & 15: --}

¶73

WA NO: 190 OF 2026

¶74

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the^{Letters Patent preferred againstthe order} dated.1211212'.025 in W.P.No.25837 of^{2024 on the file of the High Court.}

¶75

Between:

¶76

P.Sadanandam, S/o. Rajaiah, Age 36^years, Occ^{Un-Employee,Fl/o.} Akkenapally Village, Nangnoor Mandal,^{SiddipetDistrict.}

¶77

...APPET.LANT/ RESPONDENT lN W.P.No.25837 OF 2024

¶78

AND

¶79

The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Prtncipal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶80

The Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, MJ Road, Narnpally, Hyderabad.

¶81

The^{()ommissioner} of lntermediate, Education, Hyderabad, State of Telangana.

¶82

The Commissioner of Technical, Education, Hyderabad.

¶83

V.Anil Kumar, S/o. V-Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, R/o. H.No.9-6-345, Ramnagar, Karimnagar - 505001, Telangana.

¶84

A. Sonia, D/o. _Gangaram, Ag_e_d about 24 years, R/o. H.No.7-83, Polasa Village, Jagitial (M) and Jagitial District.

¶85

D.Konrlalreddy, S/o. D.Komalreddy, Aged about 31 years, R/o. H.No.1-83, Desha ipalli, Veenavanka, Karimnagar.

¶86

Mohd. Sameera Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Mada Saheb, Aged about 26 years, Rlo.H.ltlo.1 -7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpally - so6168.

¶87

M.Nag,esh Kumar, S/o. Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, Fl/ o. B-1-1t4, Mailan;ddypally, Flajendranagar, Ranga Reddy.

¶88

10.K.Kiran Kumar, s/o. Gopal, Aged about 40 years, R/o.H.No.1-3-120t1, Kisannagar, Bhongir (M), Yadadri Bhongiri District, Terangana - s0g116.

¶89

¶90

i I i 1 I i I I I I I I it

¶91

1 1 . Maleka , Dlo. Mahabood, Aged about 27^years, Fl/o. H.No.1-3€AOO7, Banjara Hills, thongir, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana^- 508116.

¶92

12.B.Mamatha, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. lvlalyal (V), Echoda (M), Adilabad District, Telangana - 504307.

¶93

(Respondents No.S to 12 not necessary parties)

¶94

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶95

13.Mohammad Karishma, D/o. Mohammad Gousuddin, Aged 30 years, Occ . Librarian, Gurukulam School Social Welfare Girls School, Suryapet, R/o. Pulusu Guruva Reddy, Reballe^Village, Thammavaram Post, Chinthalapalem Mandalam, Suryapet District.

¶96

l4.Vidagoni Laxmi Kiran, S/o. Sathaiah, Age 44^years, Oc,c . Unemployee, R./o. H.No.7-9-511A613, Plot No.9, Phase-ll, Road No.28, Sri Ramnagar Colony, Near BSNL Office, Panagal Road, Nalgonda District.

¶97

15.Raju Talari, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 35^years, Occ. Unemployee, R/o. H.No.1.105, Bahirandibba,^{AlladurgMandal,NalgondaDistrict.}

¶98

l6.Alimoddin Mohammad, S/ o. Sulthan, Age 36^years, Occ . Unemployee, R/o. H.No.7-214, Venugopala Swamy Township, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶99

B.Sukanya, D/o. Jagannadam, Aged 39^years, Occ Unemployee, R/o. H.No.5-3-4971 1, Cidya Nagar Colony, Kamareddy^- 5031 1 1.

¶100

...RESPONDENTS/

¶101

PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.25837 OF 2024

¶102

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶103

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the common orders^passed in W.P.No.25837 of 2024 dated 12.12.2025 pending disposalof the Writ Appeal.

¶104

Counselfor the Appellant: SRI M.SURENDER RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI RAMA RAO KILARU

¶105

:^{Cognggl fort[re_RespondentNos.1,3& 4: SRIG.PRASANTH, AGP FOR}

¶106

,' Counselfor the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC : Counselfor the Respondent Nos.13 Ms. B.RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR

¶107

COUNSEL FOR SRIMd. BASEER RIYAZ

¶108

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 12: --

WA NO:^{191 OF 2026}

Writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the Letters PatentAppealPreferredAgainst} the order^{Dated12-12-2025 Passed in w.P.NO 25531 0f 2024 0n the file of the High} Court.

¶113

Between:

¶114

P.Sadanandam,^{S/o- Rajaiah,Age 36 years' Occ Un-Empleyee'} R/o. Akkenallally^{Village, Nangnoor Mandal,Siddipet District'}

¶115

...APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT^{No.12 lN WP.No-25531OF 2024}

¶116

AND

¶117

state of^{Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education} Department, Secretariat,^Hyderabad'

¶118

Teiangana^{State public bervice Commission,InstitutionsSociety TGSWREIS'} Rep.^rjy its Secretary,^{MasabTank, Hyderabad'} -

¶119

Comrnissioner^{of tntermediateEducation,Govemmentof Telangana'} Hyderabad.

¶120

Comrnissioner^{of Technical Education,Governmentof Telangana' Hyderabad} 5. V.Anil Kumar,^{S/o. V.Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, R/o' H'No'9-6-345'} Ramnagar, Karimnagar^{- 505001,Telangana'}

¶121

A. Sonia,^{D/o. Ganl$aram,Agedabout 24 years, Fl/o' H'No'7-83'Polasa} Village, Jagitial^{(M) and Jagitial District}

¶122

D.KJrrdatrJddy,'Sio.^{D.Komalreddy,Aged about 31 years,Rl/o.H-No-1-83'} Deshaipalli, Veenavanka,^Karimnagar

¶123

g. Mohci. sameera Noorin; D/o. Mohd. Mada saheb,^{Aged about 2_6 years,Fi/o.} H.No.1-7711, Gorlavedu^{(V), Bhupalpatly(M), JayashankarBhupalpally-} 5061t38

¶124

M.Nagesh^{Kumar. S/o. Nagappa,Aggd about 35 years, Fi/o'8-1-114'} tvta i la iedd^ypal ly, Raiendranaga^{r, Ranga Reddy'}

¶125

1g.K.Kir;an Xumar,^{Slo. Gopal,Agedabor:rt 40 years,R/o.H,No'1-3-12011,} Kisannagar, Bhongir^{(M), Yadadri Bhongiri District, Telangana- 508116-}

¶126

11.Malelra,b/o.^{tvtatriUood, Aged about 27 years, R/o. H-No.1-3-8A007, Banjara}

¶127

Hills, Bhongir;^{-Yadadri 'Bhongir District,Telangana- 5081 16'}

¶128

12.B.Mamathi, D/o.^{BapuRao, Aged about33 years,Rl/o.Malyal (V), Echoda} (M), r\dilab-ad District, Telangana -^504307-

¶129

(Reslcondents No.S to 12 not necessary^parties)

¶130

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶131

l3.Penc}em Narender, S/o.^{Venkateshwarlu, Aged 33 years,BCB Occ Un-} empl.oyee, R/o. Jenipothulagudem,^{Chikur Mandal,Suryapet District-}

¶132

¶133

l4.A.Vtlayachandra Reddy, S/o.^{Adi Reddy,Aged31 years'Occ Un-employee,} R/o. H.No.7^{1651, Mankammathota,Karimnagar,} District.

¶134

15.T.Nagaraju, S/o. Srinivas, Aged^{34 years, BCB, Occ} R/o. Navipet, Nizamabad District.

¶135

16.M.Chinneshwar, S/o. Bhumaiah,^{Aged 35 years, BCB, Occ Un-employee,} R/o.H.No.463111, Nagampet,^{Mupkal Mandal, NizamabadDistrict.}

¶136

17.A.Sai Sujit Reddy, S/o. Sudhakar^{Reddy, Aged 34 years, EWS, Occ Un-} employee, R/ o. H.^{No.91 191} ,^{Bhagatnagar,Karimnagar,KarimnagarDistrict.}

¶137

18-J.Aravind, S/o. Narayana, Aged^{34 years, BCA, Occ Un-employee, R/o.} H.No.1 67, Vallabhapuram,^{Chivemia fVlandal, Suryapet District}

¶138

...RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.25531 OF 2024

¶139

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

¶140

Petition underSection 151^{CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the operation of the^{common orders passed in W.P.No.25531 of 2O24} dated 12.12.2024^pending disposal^{of the Writ Appeal-}

¶141

Counsel for the Appellant:^{SRI M.SURENDERRAO, SENIORCOUNSELFOR} SRI RAMA RAO KILARU

¶142

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1,3& 4: SRI G.PRASANTH,AGP FOR} SERVICES.I

¶143

Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR,SC FOR TGPSC} Counsel for the Respondent No's.l3^{to 17 : Ms. B.RACHNAREDDY, SENIOR}

¶144

COUNSEL FOR SRI Md. BASEER RIYAZ

¶145

Counselfor the Respondent^{Nos.S TO 12& 14 TO 18:} -

¶146

WA.NO: 232 OF 2026

¶147

, Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent^preferred against the order dated.l 211212025 in W.P.No .25837 of 2024 on the^file of the High Court.

¶148

Between:

¶149

, V.Anil Kumar, S/o. V.Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, R/o. H.No.9-6-345, Ramnagar, Karimnagar-S05o01, Telangana

¶150

A. Sonia, D/o. Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No.7-83, Polasa Village, Jagitial (M) and District.

¶151

D. Kondalreddy, S/o. D. Komalreddy, Aged about 31 years, F/o. H.No.1-83, Deshaipalli,Veenavanka, Karimnagar

¶152

4- Mohd. Sameera Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Madar Saheb, Aged about 26 years, R/o. H.No.1-7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalapally506168

¶153

¶154

M. N:rgesh^{Kumar,S/o.Nagappa, Aged about 35 years.Fl/o'B-1-1/4'} Mailareddypally,^{Rajendranagar' Rangareddy'}

¶155

K. Kir.an-Kumar,^{Slo.Copai,Aged about 40 years, Fl/o'H'No'1-3-12011'} Kisanrragar,^{Bhongir(M), YadadriBhongiri District Telangana-sQ811 6'} -

¶156

Malek;r,b/o.Mrnalood,^{Aged about 27 years,Fyo- H.No'1-3-8A007,Banjara} Hills, Eihongir,^{Yadadridistrict, Telangana-sO8116'}

¶157

g. B. Marnathi, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33^{years, R/o. Malyal (V)'Echoda} (M), Arlilabad District,^{Telangana-504307'}

¶158

...APPELLANTS/ RESPONDENT Nos.S^{TO 11 & 13}

¶159

AND

¶160

The State^{of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Higher Education} Department Secretariat^Hyderabad

¶161

Z. fSFSr:^{TelanganaState Public ServiceCommission,Rep by its Secretary} Prathibha Bhavan^{M J Road Nampally Hyderabad}

¶162

The Commissionerof^{Intermediate Education, HyderabadState of Telangana}

¶163

The Commissionerof^{Technical Education, Hyderabad'}

¶164

...RESPONDENTS/

¶165

RESPONDENTS

¶166

Moharnmad^{Karishma,D/o MohammadC>ousuddinAged 30 years Occ} Librarian Gurukulam^{School Social Welfare Girls School Suryapet Rl/o Pulusu} Guruva Reddy^{ReballeVillageThammavaram Post Chinthalapalem} Mandalam SuryaPet^District

¶167

VidagrcniLaxmi^{liiran, S/o Sathaiah, Age 44 years,Occ:Unemployee,R/o} H.No. 7g51t\Gt3^{Plot No 9 Phasell, Road No.28,Sri Ramnagar Cotony Near} BSNL Office Pandagat^{Road NalgondaDistrict}

¶168

Raju^{-[alari., S/o Veeraiah,Age 35 Years, Occ:Unemployee,R/o H.No-l105} BahimndibbaAlladurg^{Mandal, Medak District.}

¶169

Atimorldin Mohammad-,^{S/o Sulthan,Age 36 Years, Occ:Unemployee'Fi/o} H.No.7214 Venugopala^{SwamyTownship Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District.}

¶170

B Sutranya., D/o^{Jagar.rnadhamAge 39 Years, Occ:Unemployee,R/o H.No.} 53497'll Vidya Nagar^{Colony Kamareddy 5O3111}

¶171

10.P Serdanandam,^{S/o Rajaiah,Aged about 35 years. R/o H.No.264} Akkenapally M Nangnoor,^{Siddipet Dstrict, Telangana502280-}

¶172

(Noter Respondent No.1O is not necessarli^{party to thb present Writ Appeat)}

¶173

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITTONERS

¶174

l.A. N0: 1 OF 2026

¶175

Petition under Section. 151 CPC^{prayrng that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the orders^passed in W.P.No.25837 sf 2O24,^Dated 12-12-2V25.

¶176

¶177

Counset for the Appellants:^{SRI G.VIDYASAGAR' SENIOR CQUNSELFOR} SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.l,3 & 4: SRI G.PRASANTH,Agp fOe}

¶178

SERVICES-I

¶179

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.2:SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR' SC FORTGPSC} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.STO 10: --}

¶180

W.A.NO: 251 0F²⁰²⁶

¶181

Writ Appeal under clause^{15 of the Letters PatentPreferred AgainstOrder} Oated 12t12t2125^{in WP.No.24496 of 2024 on the file of the HighCourt'}

¶182

Between:

¶183

V.Anil Kumar, S/o.^{V. Ravinder,Agedabout 34 years, R/o. H.No.9-6-345'} Ramnagar,^{Karimnagar-S05O01,Telangana}

¶184

A. Sonia, D/o. Gangaram,^{Aged about 24 years, Rl/o- H.No.7-83,Polasa} Village, Jagitial^(M) and^District.

¶185

D. Kondalreddy,^{S/o. D. Komalreddy' Aged about 31 yeers' R/o.H.No 1-83'} Deshaipalli,Veenavanka,^Karimnagar

¶186

Mohd. bameera Noorin,^{D/o. Mohd. MadarSaheb, Aged about 26 years, Rl/o'} H.No.1-7711, Gorlavedu^{(V), Bhupalpally(M), Jayashankar Bhupalapally-} 506168

¶187

M, Nagesh Kumar,^{S/o.Nagappa,Agedabout 35 years, Rl/o.8-1-1/4,} Mailareddypally, Rajendranagar,^Rangareddy.

¶188

Mailareddypally, Rajendranagar,^Rangareddy.

¶189

1. K. Kiran -Kumar, S/o.Gopal, Aged about 40 years, Fl/o.H.No-1-3-12O11 , Kisannagar, thongir^{(M), YadadriBhongiri District Telangana-5081'16.}

¶190

1. Maleka, D/o.Mahabood,^{Aged about 27 years,R/o.H.No.1-3-8A007,Banjara} Hills, Bhongir, Yadadri^{district, Telangana-508116.}

¶191

B. Mamatha, D/o.^{BapuRao,Aged about 33 years, Ri/o. Malyal (V)' Echoda} (M), Adilabad District, Telangana-504307.

¶192

...APPELLANTS / RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 11 & 13

¶193

AND

¶194

The State of Telan6i-ria, Reply^{its PrincipalSecretary' TechnicalEducation} Department Secretariat^Hyder:abad.

¶195

TSPSC Telangana State Public^{Service Commission,Rep by its Secretary} PrathibhaBhavan M J Road Nampally,^Hyderabad.

¶196

The Commissioner of lntermediate^{Education,HyderabadState of Telangana}

¶197

The Commissioner of Technical^{Education, Hyderabad.}

¶198

...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS

¶199

¶200

Naseema Sultana, D/o MohdFakirahmed^{Aged 39 YearsOcc:unemployee} Fl/o 21109/Al Afzal Nagar PeddapalleVandM^{Karimnagat 6O5172}

¶201

Shaikl:shrathSulthana, Wo^{MdSaleem PashaAged 36 YearsOccFi/o Flat no} 104 AkhilaResidency Sriram^{NagarRoad No 3 KhammamurbanKhammam} 507001

¶202

Mohammad Zareena, Wo Mohammed^{lmamAged36 YearsOcc No 14725} PandurrangapuramBallepalle^V&M Khammam^{Urban KhammamDist 507002}

¶203

P Sadanandam, S/o^{Rajaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264Akkenapally} M Narrgnoor Siddipet District TelanganaS02280

¶204

(Note. Respondent No. 8 is not necessary^partyto the^present Writ^Appeal)

¶205

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

¶206

l.A. NO:1O F m26

¶207

Petitic,n under Seclion 151 CPC^praying that^{in the} circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the orders^{passed in} W.P.No.24496^{of 2024,Daled 12-12-2025.}

¶208

Counsel for the Appellants:^{SRI G.VIDYASAGAR,SENIORCOUNSEL FOR} SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM

¶209

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l,3 &^{4: SRI G.PRASANTH,AGP FOR} SERVICES{ Counsel for the Respondent No.2:^{SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR,SC} FOR^TGPSC C<lunsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA^SHARMA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6^TO 8: -

¶210

WA NO: 258 OF 2026

¶211

Writ lrppeal under clause¹ 5 of the Letters Patent Prefened Against the Order dated 12-12-2025 in WP.No.25531 of 2024^on the file^of the High Court.

¶212

Between

¶213

Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶214

...P€TMONER/ APPELLANT

¶215

AHD

¶216

Pendem Narender, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged 33 years, BC-B. OccUnemployee, R:/o 2$9/1. Jenipothulagudem, Chikur Mandal,suryapet District. As per C 0 dt 12112125 vide lA1/25 Dismissed as withdrawn

¶217

A.Viiiiyachandra Reddy, S/o Adi Reddy, Aged 31 Years, OccUnemployee, Rio H.No7-1-651, Mankammathota, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶218

¶219

T.Nagaraju, S/o Srinivas, Aged 34 Years, BC-B- OccUnemployee, R/oNavipet, Nizamabad District

¶220

M Chinneshwar, S/o Bhumaiah, Aged 35 Years, BC-B, OCct .nemploy cc. R/o H.No 4-63-1 ll,NagampetMupkal Mandal, Nizamabad District

¶221

A.Sai Sujit Reddy, Sio Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 34 Years. F. WS, OccUnemploy ec, R/o H.No 9-1-191. Bhagatnagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

¶222

J.Aravind, S/o Naray ana, Aged 34 Years, BC-A, Occ Unemployee, R/o. H. No 1 -67, Vallabhapuram,Chivemia Mandal,Suryapet District.

¶223

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Dept, Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad.

¶224

The Commissioner of. lntermediate, Education, Govt. of Telangana Flyderabad,

¶225

The Commissioner, of Technical Education, Govt. of Telangana Hyderabad.

¶226

1O.V.Anil Kumar, S/o V Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, Rio H. No 96345 Ramnagar Karimnagar-S05oo1 Telangana.

¶227

t.-:,.:.

¶228

1 l.A.Sonia , Dlo Gangaram Aged about 24^years, R/o H No 783 Polasa Village Jagitial M and District.

¶229

l2.D.Kondalreddy, S/o D Komalreddy Aged about 31 years Fl/o H No 183 Deshaipalli Veenavanka Karimnagar

¶230

Mohd Sameeralloorin, D/o Mohd MadarSaheb Aged about 26^years R/o H No 17711 Gorlavedu V Bhupalpally M Jayashankar Bhupalapal 1y506168

¶231

14.M.Nagesh Kumar, S/o Nagappa Aged about 35 years Rio 81114 Ma ilaredd ypallyRajendranagar Ranga redd^y

¶232

15.K.Kiran Kumar, S/o Gopal Aged about 40^years R/o H No 1312011 Kisannagar Bhongir M YadadriBhongiri District TelanganasO81 16

¶233

16.Maleka, D/o Mahabood Aged about 27^years R/o H No 1384007 Banjara Hills Bhongir Yadadri district Telanganas081 1 6

¶234

P.Sadanandam, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally M Nangnoor Siddipet District Telangana502280

¶235

18.B.Mamatha, D/o Bapu Rao Aged about 33 years R/o Malyal V Echoda M Adilabad District Telangana 50430

¶236

(As per Court order dated 1911212024 vide lA No. 3 of 2O24 in WP No. 25531 of 2024, Respondents No. 1O to 18 are impleaded)

¶237

,,. 1;;,.i;,;ili; .:,.r,:i^',,:-j-ji,: ,ii:^{1;: -',,'} l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 ::' .:I:.r:i. '' .;l'ri:" Dstition

¶238

i ...RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS :

¶239

i Dstition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in

¶240

..:..:,',.

¶241

: suspend the operation of the orders dated 1211212025 passed in WP No. 25531 of 2024, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

¶242

¶243

counsel for^{the Appellant: SRt P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC} counsel for the^{Respondent Nos.2 TO 6: sRl M.V.RAMA RAO} counsel for^{the Respondent Nos.7 TO 9: SRI G.PRASANTH,} APG FOR SERVICES'I

¶244

Counselfor the^{Respondent Nos'10 TO 18:} -

¶245

WA NO: 259 OF²⁰²⁶

¶246

Writ Appeal under^{clause 15 of the LettersPatent PrefferedAgainst the Order} Dated 12-12-.2025^{in w.P.NC..25837 of 2024 on the file of the High court.}

¶247

Between:

¶248

Telangana Public^{servicecommission,Rep. by its Secretary,Prathibha} Bhavan,M.J.Road,^{Nampally, Hyderabad.}

¶249

... PETITIONER/APPE LLANT

¶250

AND

¶251

?'^:l::'':;l

¶252

Moharrrmad^{Karishma,D/o MohammadGousuddin Aged 3O years, Occ} Librarian Gunrkulam^{School, Social WelfareGirls School, Suryapet, Rl/o} pulusuGuruva Reddy, Reballe Village, Thammavaram^{Post,Chinthalapalem} Mand alam, SuryaPet^District-

¶253

Vidagoni Laxmi^{Kirrn, S/o Sathaiah Age 44 years, Occ UnemployeeR/o H.} ruo. 7-g-St tAGl3,^{Plot Nu 9, Phasell, Road No 28, Sri Ramnagar Colony,} Near^IBSNL Office,^{PandagalRoad, NalgondaDistrict'}

¶254

Raiu^{'falari, S/o Veeraiah Age 35 Years, Occ UnemployeeR/o H' No' 1-105'} Bahirtrndibba,Alladurg^{Mandal, Medak District'}

¶255

Atimoddin Mohammad,^{s/o Sulthan Age 36 Years, Oco UnemployeeR/o H.} No.7-21,4,Venr.rgopala^{Swamy Township. ChityalaMandal, NalgondaDistrict.}

¶256

B Sukanya,^{D/o JagannadhamAge 39 Years,Occ Unemployee,R/o H- No-5-} 349711, Vidya NagarColony'^{Kamareddy-5O3111}

¶257

The {itate of Telangana,^{Rep by its Principal Secretary,Higher Education} Dept, Telangana Secretariat^Hyderabad.

¶258

Z. Comrnissioner of^{lntermediate Education,Hyderabad, State of Telangana}

¶259

A. tre Commissionerof^{Technical Education, Hyderabad}

¶260

V.Anil Kumar, S/o^{V Ravinder,Aged about 34 years, R/o H. No 96345} Ramrtagar Karimnagar-So5O0^{1 Telangana}

¶261

10.A.Sopia, D/o Gangaram^{Aged about24 years,R/o H No 783PolasaViltage} Jagiti;al M and District.

¶262

::11.D:Kondakeddy, S/o D^{KomalreddyAgedabout 31 years R/o H No 183} Desh.aipalli Veenavanka Karimnagar

¶263

t2.Mohd Sameeftl Noorin, D/o Mohd MadarSaheb Aged about 26^years R/o H No 17'7ll Gortavedu V Bhupalpally M Jayashankar Bhupalapally506168

¶264

13.M.Na'gesh Kumar, S/o Nagappa Aged about 35 years R/o 81114 Maila reddypally Rajendranagar Rangareddy

¶265

14.K.Kimn Kumar, S/o Gopal Aged about 40 years FUo H No 1312011 Kisannagar Bhongir M YadadriBhongiri District TelanganasO81 1 6

¶266

¶267

1 5. Maleka, D/o Mahabood Aged about 27 years R/o H No 1384007 Banjara Hills Bhongir Yadadri district Telanganas081 1 6

¶268

P.Sadanandam, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally M Nangnoor Siddipet District TelanganaSO22SO

¶269

17.B.Mamatha, Dio Bapu Rao Aged about 33 years R/o Malyal V Echoda M Adilabad District Telangana 50430

¶270

(As per Court order dated 1911212024 vide lA No. 3 of 2024 in WP No. 25837 of 2024, Respondents No. 09 to 17 are impleaded)

¶271

... RES PON D E NTS/RES PON DE NTS

¶272

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

¶273

, ,. ,: ,.

¶274

Petition under Section' 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances stated in , .. the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to i^{-.j suspend the operationof the orders dated1211212025passed in WP.No.2ffi37of} " t'- 2024, pending disposalof the writ appeal.

¶275

.lr:-'.-

¶276

Counset for the Appettant: SRt P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 5: SRI P.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 TO 8: SRI G.PRASANTH, AGP FOR

¶277

SERVICES.I

¶278

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.9 TO 17: --

WA NO: 260 OF 2026

.'.:!

1 :, 'l-; ' j:: .:..

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Prefened against the dated 12fl212025 in WP.No.24496 of 2O24 on the file of the High Court. ,\

¶283

Between:

¶284

-..:

¶285

Telangana Public Service commission, Rep. by its Secretary,^prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶286

...PETITIONER/APPE LLANT

¶287

AND

¶288

Naseema sultana, D/o Mhd Fakiahmed, Aged about 39 years, occ. R/o 2-1-

¶289

'1O9/A1, Afzal Nagar, Peddapalle (V and M) Karimnagar SOS1T2

¶290

1. shaik lshrath sultana, wo Md saleem Pasha, Aged about 36 years, occ. R/o. Flat No. 104, Akhila Residency, Sriram Nagar Road No. 3, Khammam Urban, Khammam 507001

¶291

¶292

MoharnmedZareena,^{Wo Mohammed lmam, Aged about 36 years, Occ' R/o'} 14-7-21j, Pandurangapuram,^{Ballepalle, (vand M), Khammam Urban'}

¶293

Khamnram^{District--507OO2}

¶294

The State^{of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (technicalEducation)} Secret;r riat riat^{HYd erabaderabad}

¶295

Secret;r riat riat^{HYd erabaderabad}

¶296

S. The Oommissioner^{of TechnicalEducation, DepartmentofTechnical} Education,^{HYder:abad,Telangana}

¶297

commissioner^{of lntermediateEducation, Hyderabad,state of Telangana} 7. V.Anil Kumar,^{S/o V.Ravinder,Aged about34 years, Fl/o H' No 96345} Ramnatgar^{Karimnagar-So5001Telangana}

¶298

g, A.SoniaI D/o Gangiram Aged about 24^{years,R/o H No 783 Polasa Village} Jagitiatl M and^District

¶299

D.koruJal^{Reddy, S/o D.Komalreddy Agedabout 31 years R/o H No 183} Desha ipalli^{VeenavankaKarimnagar}

¶300

10.Mohd^{:sameeralloorin.D/o Mohd MadarSahebAged about26 years Fl/o H No} 177t1^{t3orlaveduV BhupalpallyM Jayashankar Bhupalapally506l68}

¶301

11.M.Nagesh^{Kurnar, S/o NagappaAged about 35 yearsFUo 81114} Mailarcddypally^{RajendranagarRangareddy}

¶302

12.k.Krarr^{(r*".,S/o Gopal Aged about 40 yearsR/o H No 131201} . Kisanrragar^{BhongirM YadadriBhongiri District Telangana508116}

¶303

13.Malek:r,b/o^{tUaniboodAged about27 years R/o H No 138A007Banjara Hills} Bhongir Yadadri^{districtTelanganasOSl1 6}

¶304

14.p.Sad;anandam,^{S/o Raiaiah Agedabout 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally} M Nanrgnoor^{Siddipet District Telangana502280}

¶305

15.B.Marrratha,^{D/o bapu Rao Aged about 33 yearsR/o Malyal V Echoda M} Adilabad District^{Tetangana 50430}

¶306

(As pe,r Court order dated.^{1911212024vide lA No. 3 of 2024 in WP No- 24496} of 2024, Respondents^{No.O7 to 15 are impleaded)}

¶307

..RE SPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶308

l.A. N9:1 OIF²⁰²⁶

¶309

petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition,the High Courtmay be pleasedto} suspend the operation^{of the orders dated 12112t2O25passedin WP.No.2449i6 of} 2O24,^{pendinrg disposalof the writ appeal.}

¶310

couhset for the Appellant:^{sRl P.S.RA,ASEKHAR,SC FOR TGPSC} CorinSel for ffre Respondent^{No.l: SRI'P.RAMASHARANASHARMA} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4 TO 6: SRI G.PRASANTH,AGP FOR} . . SERVICES.I

¶311

Counselfor the Responder{ Nos.2 TO 3 & 7 TO 15: -

¶312

The Courd made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶313

IN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF^TEI.AIIGATIA AT I{YDERABAI)

¶314

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF. JUSf,ICE^{SRIAPARESH KI'MAR SINGH} AND

¶315

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

¶316

lIl"RIT APPEAL Nos.l76. 185. 19O.^191. 232. 251.^258. 259 and 26O of 2O26

DATE,:,1L.O4.2026

trI.A.No.176 of 2O26

Between:

V-Anil Kumar and 7 others

¶321

.Appellants

¶322

And

¶323

State of Telangana, rep. bY^its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 9 others

Respondents

U/.A.No.185 of 2O26

Between:

P.Sadanandam

.Appellant

And

State of Telangana, rep. bY^its Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 14 others

....Respondents

W.A.No.19O of 2O26

Between:

P.Sadanandam

..Appellant

And

State of Telangana, rep-^{bY its} Principat Secretary,^Higher Education Department,^Secretariat, Hyderabad and 16 others

Respondents

W.A.Ilo- 191 of 2o26

P.Sadanandam

....Appellant

And State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyder abad and 17 others

....Respondents

W.A.No.232 of 2Cfr26

Betweea:

V.Ani[ Kumar and 7 others State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Educzttion Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 9 others Fti N 1o

.Appellants

Respondeuts

Between:

V.Anil Kumar and 7 others State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher EduceLtion Depa.rtment, Secretariat, Hyderabad and 7 others

.Appellaats

.Respondents

W.A.No.258 of 2O26

Between:

Telangana State Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretar5r, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶358

.Appellant

¶359

And

¶360

Pendem Narender and 17 others

....Respondents

W.A.No.259 of 2026

Between:

Telangana State Public Service Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J-Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶365

.Appellant

¶366

And

¶367

Mohammad Karistrma and 16 others

..Respondents

W.A.No.26O of 2026

Between:

Telangana State Public Scrvice Commission, rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶372

....Appellant

¶373

And

¶374

Naseema Sultana and 14 others

¶375

....Respoadents

¶376

COMMON JUDGMENT

¶377

Since the issues that arise in the above writ appeals are integrally one and the same, the writ appeals are being disposed of by this Common Judgment.

I I

;:.-ii.i{xiii*if;

W.A.Nos.176, 191 and 258 of 2026 are directed against W.P.No.25531 of 2024; W.A.Nos.185, 251 and 26o- ot 2026 are dire<:ted against W.P.No.24496 of 2O24 and W.A.Nos- L9O, 232 and 259 of 2026 are directed against W-P.No.2S A3Z oi ZOZ+.

¶382

All the aforesaid writ appeals are against common order date,C 12.12.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.2553L,25837 and,24496 ot 202tl by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions with a direction to the resp,ondent authorities to consider or reconsider ttre claim of the resp,cndents herein {wri.t petitioners) for appointment to the post of Libr:rrian, pursuant to Notilication No.3O /2022 dated 31.12-2022, purely on the basis of tteir merit, and without reference to the rejec:tion order, in a manner similar to the cases of other canctidates who were allegedly similarly situated and had been appointed or promoted earlier.

¶383

Heard Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counse[ representing Sri liai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for ttre appellants in W.A.Nos.176, 232 and 25I of 2026; Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Rama Rao Kilaru, learned counsel for the appellant in W-A.Nos.185, 19O and 191 of 2026; Sri P.S-lRajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Public Service Comrnission; Sri G.Prasanth, learned Assistant Govr:rnment Pleader for Services-l appearing-foE- the State of Tela;ngana; Sri M-V-Rarna Rao, learned counsel appearing for

¶384

¶385

respondent Nos.S to 9 in^{W.A.No- 176 of 2026 and respondent} Nos.2 to 6 in^{w.A.No.258of 2026; Ms.B.Rachna Reddy,learned} Senior Counsel representing^{Sri Md.Baseer Riyaz,Iearned counsel} for respondent No.13 in^{W.A.No.I9Oof 2026 and respondent} Nos.13 to L7 in^{W-A.No.191 of 2026; Sri P.RamaSharana Sharma,} learned counsel for^{respondentNo.13 in WjA.No.185of 2026,} respondent No.S in^{W.A.No.25L of 2c26 and respondentNo.l in} W.A.No.26O of 2026 and^{perusedthe record-}

¶386

Factual matrix

¶387

The Telangana State^{Public ServiceCommission (hereinafter} referred to as 'TGPSC")^{issued NotificationNo.30/2O22 dated} 31.12-2C/22 inviting apptications^{for recruitmentto the post of} Librarian. The notification^{was issued pursuantto} requisitions/indent^{received from the State Government, notifying} a total of 7L^{vacancies, comprising40 postsunder the controlof} the Cornrnissioner of^{Interrnediate Education and 31 posts under} tl-e control of the commissioner^{of Technical Education-}

¶388

Clause 6 of the said^{notificationprescribedthe requisite} educationat quatifications.^{Insofaras the post of Librarian under} lntermediate Ed,ucation^{(Post code No.01) is concerned, the} candidates were required^{to possess} ,^{ittter alia, a Bachelor'sDegree} in Arts, Science or Commerce,^{along witha PostgraduateDegree in} Library Science^{with not less than 5O7omarks- The said clause was} accompanied by a^{specifrcstipulationgoverning qualifications}

¶389

¶390

¶391

obta:lned through distance education mode, which assumes central

¶392

relevance in the present lis and is extracted hereunder:

¶393

*N.B:- Q lXstaace &Iucatlon:- Tle Afpliunts who lto.ue obtained requisite Degrees thtough Open Uniuersities / Dbtane Hucation mode are required to haue reognition by th? Uniuersity Grants Commission / AICTE / Distane Eduution Bureau as tte cese maA be. Unless such Degrees lroue been reqni.sed by tle releuant Stc,tutory Autltority, they will not be arepted for purpose of H.ucational Qualifcation vide its Public Notice No. F-27-1/2012 (CPP-10, tn- 27/06/2O13. {A uniuersitu established or inaaorated bu or under a State ad. sholl ooerate onlu within the tenitorial jurisd.idion allotted to it under its Ad. and in no case beuond the tenitoru of the State of its locationl. Tlw onus of proof of reagnition by tle releuant Statutory Authoritg that their Degrees / Uniuersities haue been reagnrsed rests with tle candidate-"

¶394

Pursuant to the said notification, tl.e written examination was conducted on L7.O5-2023. The respondents herein (rwit petitioners) participated in the selection process and were subsequently inctuded in the provisional selection List published on O9.O').2O24. Thereafter, the TGPSC undertook the process ot certi:ircate veriFrcation of the provisionally selected candidates. During the process, it was discovered that the respondents herein had obtained their Master of Library and Inforrnation Science (M.Li-Sc.) degree through 'distance education'mode from Acharya Nagarju'na, University, a State University established under the A.p. Universities Act, 1991 (for short'1991 ActJ, having its headquarters at Guntur in the state of Andhra pradesh. However, the study centres through which the respondents pursued the said cour:se were admittedly located at places, now within the state of

¶395

Telangana

¶396

¶397

a. [n order to veriff the validity and^{recognitionof suchdegrees,} the TGPSC addressed a communication^datedL7 -05.2024^to Acharya Nagarjuna Universiqr.^{The Universigr, by its reply dated} C,6.06.2024, furnished details of candidates^{qrho had obtained} M.Li.Sc. degrees through its Centre^{for Distance Education. While} indicating in the relevant column ttrat^{the Study centres were} 'within^{jurisdiction'} with^{refejrenceto tl.e A.P. State Reorganization} Act, 20L4, (for short, 'Reorganization^{ActJ theUniversi$r} simultaneously disclosed the^{actuallocation of such study centres,} which were in fact, situated within the^{State of Telangana-}

¶398

Meanwhite, the respondents^{(writpetitionerslin} W-P.No.25531 of 2024 submitted^{representationsbeforethe} TGPSC seeking recognition of^{their degrees. upon inaction, ttre} respondents herein approached this^{Court by filing W-P-No.16186} of 2024, which was disposed^{of wittr a direction to the TGPSC to} consider their representation. In^{compliance thereof, the TGPSC} passed a reasoned order, dated 29-Oa-2O24^{uide Memo} No.453/Rectt-pool-lu312022,^{rejectingthe claim ofthe} respondents herein. The TGPSC^{recorded that the degrees} obtained by the respondents herein^{were through study c€ntres} located outside the territoriat^{jurisdictionof Acharya.Nagarjuna} University, which, under^{the governing statute, is confined to the} districts of Guntur and^{Preikasam.Consequently,such degrees} were held to be invalid^{for the purposeof recruitment,in view of}

¶399

¶400

the University Grants^.commission (uGC) public Notice dated 27.06.20 13, which formed part of the recruitment conditions-

¶401

10- Aggrieved thereby, the respondents herein instituted separate writ petitions before this court. During the pendency of the writ proceedings, the appeltants herein who are meritorious canrlidates whose narnes appeared'in the provisional selection [ist, sought to be impleaded- The learned singte Judge allowed t]re imptead applications, whereupon the appettants entered &pp,3arance and hled their counter-aflidavits,. along with applications seeking vacation of interim orders.

¶402

The learned single Judge, upon consideration disposed of the writ petitions uide lommon order dated t2.L2.2o2s- The leareed single Judge took note of the contention that in earlier recruitment processes, including Notihcation Nos-2o l2oLT and 28/'.2017, degrees obtained through distance education mode from Achar5ra Nagarjuna University had been accepted, and that even prornotions had been granted on the basis of such qualifications. Placing reliance on such instances, the learned single Judge held that the action of the TGPSC in rejecting the candidature of the respondents herein (writ petitioners) amounted to discriminatory trearrnent uis-ri-uis simitarly situated candidaies- The learned single Judge further held that the principte of negative equatity was not attracted to the facts of the case and., accordingly, din-ected the respondents to consider/reconsider the claims of the

¶403

¶404

respondents herein (writ petitioners) for appointment strictly^on merit, without reference to the rejection order dated^29.08.2024.

¶405

Submissiotls on behalf of the Appellants

¶406

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, advanced elaborate submissions assailing the impugned common^order dated L2-L2.2O25 as under:

¶407

i) That the controversy iri the^present case is not one of^alleged discrimination, but pertains to the foundational validity of the educational qualification itself. [t was contended that the respondents admittedly obtained their M.Li.Sc- degrees through distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University, through study centres situated in tl.e State of I

¶408

Telangana.

¶409

iU That the territorial^{jurisdiction 'of} Acharya Nagarjuna University, as per its parent Act and the Schedule thereto, is confined to the districts of Guntur and Prakasam. The operation of study centres beyond the said territorial limits is in clear contravention of the statutory framework^governing the Universiqr, as we[[ as the mandate contained in^{the UGC} Public Notice dated 27.06.2o-13. That the recruitment notifrcation dated 3L.L2-2022 expressly incorporates the said UGC Public Notice, thereby rendering compliance therewith a condition precedent for eligibilit5r. Consequently, ttre degrees obtained by the respondents, being contrar5r to the statutory

/ /

and regulatory regime, are ex facie invalid and cannot be recognised for the purpose of public employment.

¶414

iii) That the learned single Judge erred in. holding that the Doctrine of "Negative Equalit5/ is inapplicable to the facts of the present case- [t was submitted ttrat even assuming that certain appointments were made in ttre past on the basis of similar qualifications, such . appointments, if irregul.ar or illegal, cannot confer any enforceable right upon t]re respondents herein to seek parity. [t was emphasised that Article 14 of the constitution embodies a positive concept of equality and cannot be invoked to perpetuate illegaligr or irregularitjr. The doctrine of negative equalit5r operates as a bar against claiming relief founded upon an earlier erroneous or illegal action of the State.

¶415

i.rl That the reliance ptaced by the respondents herein upon prior recruitments and promotions, including those under Notification Nos-2O/2O17 and 2B/2O|T, is wholly misconceived and does not give rise to any estoppel against ttre appellants or the recruiting authorit5r, as such, recruitments were conducted under different rures and prior to the crystallisation of the tegal position by this court in 8- sai Ktran v. state of Telongana.r. In the said decision,

¶416

I w.P.No.3006 0f 2c21, dated 17.C,8-2022-

¶417

¶418

it was specificalty held that degrees^{obtained through} distance education mode from^{Acharya Nagarjuna Universi$r} through study centres^{locatedin Telanganaare not valid for} the purposes of higher education^{or employment- [t was} thus contended that^past irregularities,^{if any, cannot be} retied upon to tegitimise an otherwise^{invalid qualifrcation.}

¶419

v) That the UGC Pubtic^{Notice dated 27 -O6-2OL3has statutory} force and is intended to regulate^{and maintain standards in} higher education,^{particularly with respect to territorial} jurisdiction and operation of study centres- It^was emphasised ttrat the said^{PublicNoticewas expressly} incorporated into the recruitment^{notification, thereby} forming an integral part^{of the eligibility conditions-The} TGPSC was bound to strictly^{enfOrce the said conditions.} Any deviation therefrom would^{render the selection process} arbitrary and violative of^{the Constitutional mandate under} Artictes 14 and 16 of the Constirution-

¶420

submissions on behalf^{of the respondents} {writ^petitionersf

¶421

Learned counsel appearing^{forthe respondents (writ} petitioners), supported the impugned^{cornmon order and} contended that the same^{does not warrant interference and} advanced ttre submissions^{as under:}

¶422

¶423

¶424

i) That the learned Single Judge was justified in holding ttrat the action of the TGPSC in rejecting the candidature of the respondents is arbitrar5r and discrirninatory. The respondents placed reliance on muttiple instances wherein candidates possessing identical qualifications, narnely M.Li.Sc. degrees obtained through distance education mode from Achar5la Negarjuna University, trad been appointed or promoted. Such instances include recruitments under Notification No.28/2OL7, appoinrments made by the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational lnstitutions Societ5r (TSWREIS), and promorions granted to the post of Librarian in Government Junior Colleges. It was submitted that the consistent a.cceptance of such qualifications in the past creates a legitirnate expectation and ttrat the sudden departure therefrom results in hostile discrimination, violative of Articles L4 and t6 of the Constitution.

¶425

ii) That the respondents pursued their educational qualifications during the period between 2014 and 2020, and ttrat section 95 of the Reorganisation Act guarantees equal opportunities in higher education to students of both successor States for a period of ten years. tt was argued that the degrees obtained from Universities of the erstwhi.le composite state ought to be treated as valid, irrespective of

¶426

¶427

¶428

whether the study centres^{werelocatedin AndhraPradesh or} Telangana.

¶429

iii) The learned^{counseldrew attention to the communication} dated c,6.06.2024^{issued by Achar5raNagarjunauniversit5r,} wherein, in response^{to a query as to wtretherthe study} centres were within^{its jurisdiction, the universityanswered} in the affirmative,^{referring tothe provisionsof tl.e} Reorganisation Act.^{It was contendedthat the University,} being the degree-granting^{authority, has recognisedthe} validit5r of the degrees^{in question,and the TGPSCcannot sit} in^judgment over^{such determination'}

¶430

iv) That the rejection^{order dated 29-08.2024passed by the} TGPSC is vitiated^{by non-applicationo[ mind, inasmuch as it} merely reproduces^{the contentsof the UGCPublic Notice}

¶431

. without duty considering^{the f,actual matrixand ttre} consistent practice^{of acceptanceof such degrees by the} State and its instrumentalities.^{[t was arguedthat the said} order is mechanical,^{arbitrary and Liable to be set aside.}

¶432

L4. We have taken^{note of the respective submissionsurged and} the material^{placed on record-}

¶433

Conslderation^{bY th'is Court}

¶434

The foundational^{factsgivingrise to the present case stand} adrnitted and are not^{in controversy, the respondentshaving}

¶435

¶436

¶437

pursued and obtained their M.Li.sc- degree through tlee distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna University. It is equally unclisputed that the study centres through which they undertook the said course were situated within the State of Telangana- The territorial jurisdiction of Achar5ra Nagarjuna Universiqr is circumscribed by its parent statute, namely the Andhra pradesh unisersities Act, 1991. The Schedule appended thereto defines the "universit5r area' as comprising the districts of Guntur and Pralcasam- Being a State Universi$r constituted under statute, its funr:tionar and academic operations are necessarily confined to the said territorial limits and it cannot estabtish or operate study cenlres beyond such jutrisdiction- The relevant schedule is extr,rcted hereunder:

¶438

THESC'{EDUT.E
l8cc..dqr 2 (tg) and at
uufrrEnstr=s ruo ner+r=inironnr-.n E anr.crrolar
sa- Nmo(tft€ UoavG.Eltt7 Arq H€<tquryt€c
No- U.iGty
(1, (2) (3) (.)
1 Atrltra &a mpdElog ttt€ ,I€d<lrap*EE
LrnlE6irtt/ Oastra€a ot
"[xt
'.[ r l- Vlia]rmao.rad
{t21. ,lsa&rrapat.!ffi
"[.srJ
2- l<.kat-ya Arq ffiiprisiftg tft6 V\ra.mgal
frnl€6ttt Oilsdcas o{:
a[rl-r,vsangat
:t1aul
2IEl
"t2l-Kframmqm
t7. St{.-lkrrho.trdryE&.adre.
22-2tt2la.tE.ra. byAgk2e t<-a.rrEar AaaEdair Garilhesmn€ h wd Goddr, & EEt k I2l a tll .d otgOG .Et(rr6qd Kham.M by& *ek.A No-a d ffi-6 It I a agB omni.it d a. I2t [email protected] by oy us14 NoAdm.b.zad&.rBgffid as lrl a

¶439

¶440

15b-dt-al IB
A.nolapw
d.v-alra (,{16 af:
Ua{Ersfty
l. Anarilc.}.r.
aIsxl
4- -[Actrqnraf{aga.runa A.,u Oli6oa:mpri.ang tt€ an a<-z.NambrtGuct6
t n,@ittrl Ois.act
l- Guntua
2. Ral€.a6
"tx:1
5- O8.r14ia Ar{ ffipd.ang af6 t{}.d€rabad
Unt€Glty Dastrl* ol,: a^d lt .tE!.
r- Hydd-abad e{@d lo ao}a
plrc€ wttfrln a
2- RacgsFoddy qtigu@a
ar€a d M
-t3. M€<t-&l mia€B around
it.
-[rxl
,,[x-,
-tr-l
6. l&i€|ffits!.He5d&.
2..ffiby&&-7d&-
5,Kd..r.tffibr/€k.Ad2@..
E. re ffi Ey & No.A d & *d tuhq.Eaav a@d Et7
Adk2d&ir.
Z. kdNaffioffirryE &.24 d M.
A B90.6 dtsd bryr E b. rs d Az.

¶441

At the outset, it is necessary, for a proper appreciation of the facts and the applicable law to extract the Public Notice dated 27.O6.20L3 for consideration by this Court:

¶442

Prtbllc Notlce

¶443

-on

¶444

@ur*s/Studa Cenfies/Off Campuses & Tenatorlal Jttr{s,dlctlon o f Unlvetslt/.es

¶445

No. F.27-1/2012(CPP-il)

¶446

27 June,2ol3

¶447

The bmmission has @me across many o.d.uerti*ments^publisled. in National Dailies offering opportunities for the award of^univercitg degrees tfuough uarious franchise^{programmesonductedbg} ertain priuate r'nstitufibns. These priuate establbhments daimilq tluemselves as studg @ntres or learning @ntres of different uniuersities enrol students for uarbus^{degree prcgrammesand} al.s daim to be^resportsible for^teachingand anduct of^{examinatiorts.} The faanlty and tle infrostrudure^belong to tlese^priuate agerrcies. The anemd uniuersitg exept^prouiding sytlabus and^teachirtg materials, hos rw mechanism to^{monitor and} maintatn the^academic stcrndards of teaching^{being imparted at these entres- This} blatant ompromi.se with the standards of^educationhas led to widespred.

I
/

criticism. Tle Cornmrbsion has talcen a serious uiew of these misleading aduertisements appeaing in uarious newspopersIt is, tlwrefore, darified for tle infonnation of all concemed, including students and parents tltat:

¶452

a) a Central or State Gouemment University @n @nduct @urses through its own departments, r'fs oonsfifuent colleges and/or through its aJfiliated C;olleges;

¶453

b) a uniuersity established. or inorprated by or under o State act shall operate only within tle territonal jurisdiction allofted to it under its Ad and in no case begond the tenitory of the state of its location;

¶454

c) the priuate uniuetsities and. deemed uniuersities cannot affiliate ang allege or tnstitution for anductinq cpurses leading to award of its diplomas, degrees or otler qualifications-

¶455

d) no University, whetler @ntra\ state, priuate or deemed, cnn olfer its progrdmmes thmugh franchising arrangement with priuate aaching insfi'fufions even for the purpose of anducting @urses thtowgh disto,nce fiLode.

¶456

e) all uniuersities stwll award only suchdegrees as are specified bg the UGC and publi.sted in the olficial garette.

¶457

J)^{the Uniuersifr.esshall onducltheir} frst^degree and Master's degree prcrgrammes in awrdane with th.e regulations nottfted by the Gommissionⁱⁿ this regard.

¶458

In this anrtedion, the sfiidents and the general public are also herebg infonned of the fotlouting regul<iting provisions pertaining to different ty pes of uniuersities :

¶459

A- A@ Reguldaons oa Pt:luo'tc Uefrrcrsltles

¶460

A priuate universitg established under a State Act shatt be o unitary univercity. A priuate university may be permitted to open off ampus @ntres, off shore cr,mpuses and stttdy entres afier fiue yeans of its aming into exi-stene subjid to tle fuLfillment of onditions as laid down under UGC (F$tabli.shment of & Maintenane of Standards in Priuate UniuercitiesJ ReguLations, 2OO3- As of rww, the IJGC ltns not granted. permissbn b any Priuate lJnirrcrsitg to establish offcam4>us/study er$re.

¶461

B. a@ Rqulctlons oa Deemcd Utr,frrcrslties

¶462

A Deemed Uniuercitg slull operate ontg within its Headquarlers or from^{those off ampuses/off-slwre@mpuses} whiclt are apprcued by the Gouemment of India tluough notifiation publislwd in tte bJficial gazette.

¶463

[n clase of distane eduation prcgrummes, ra institution deemed to be uniuersity, so declared bg ttrc @ut- of tndia afier 26 May, 2010 [date^{of publication} of^UGC (Institutiorts Deemed to be Uniuersities) Regatlations, 2O1Ol is allowed to andud, @urses in the distance mode-

¶464

Th. Institutions deemed to be uniuetsities declared before 26th May, 2O7O are rwt atloued to anduct @urses in di.stancr- mod.e from ang of its off-campus entres/off-shore @mpases apprc*kfier 26th May,2O10.

¶465

¶466

Approual for new @ttrses and ertension of approual of tle aurces alreodg run by the Deemed to be Uniuersities under distane made would be granted bg the UGC subject to tlw fulfllment of onditiotrs as laid down by the UGC.

¶467

The UGC lws rat granted approual to any deemed to be uniuersity to establish study centres -

¶468

Ang information/darification with regard to reagnition of Priuatc Uniuersities/ Deemed Uniuersities and the @urses offered by them may be obtained frcm JS (CPP-Q UGC, Bo.hadurshah hfar Marg, New Delhi-

¶469

C. Dtstance Educqtlon ptograrwncs oJ tte Cen*a.l Un&rlsldes and ffate^(buL anfircrs{t{es

¶470

The Central/State Caut. Uniuersities can^qnducf ourses thtough distane mode in amrdance with the^prourbions of their respediue Actand afierthe apprcualof tte UGC.

¶471

The infonnatbn reloting to reagni*d uniuersities, list of specified degrees and aLl the releuant regulations/instrudions/guidelines of tle UGC ore auailable on UGC website: www-ugc.ac-in-

¶472

The students are, aduised not to take admission in th.e unopprcued *udy Centres, Off-Campus Centres, Franchi.see Institutiorts, &Ileges/Institutions daiming to be afftliated with Priuate Uniuersities or Deemed Uniuersities.

¶473

L7. In the aforesaid Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, ttre UGC unequivocally clarified that^oa uniuersitg establis?ed or incorporated bg or und.er a State Act shatl operate onlg within th.e terrttortal juri.sdiction allotted to it under its Act and in na atse begond the territory of tle State of its location." The establishment and. operation of study centres by Achar5ra Nagarjuna University in the State of Telangana is, tJrerefore,^plainly in derogation of the said binding regulatory framework.

¶474

It is also to be noted that the aforesaid UGC Publ.ic Notice was not merely of general application, but was expressly incorporated into the recruitment notification issued by the TGPSC on 3L.L2.2O22. The notification categorically stipulated that degrees obtained through distance education mode would not be

"/ /

(^)

accepted unless tJeey were duly recognized in terms of the said UGC norms, and further cast the burden upon the candidate to estabtish such recognition- Thus, compliance with the UGC mandate was made an essential condition <if eligibility, and not a me;'e procedural formality.

¶479

In the present case, the respondents have failed to discharge the said burden. The reliance placed upon the purported 'clerihcation" issued by Acharya Nagarjuna University, stating that the degrees are valid "as per the A.P. State Reorganisation Act, 2O 14,' is misconceived and legally untenable. A statutory University cannot, by way of an adrninistrative communication or intt:rpretative assertion, enlarge ttre scope of its territorial jurisdiction beyond what is expressly provided in its governing stal-ute. Further, Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act, pertains to the continuation of admission-related arrangements and equitable access to educational opportunities for a limited transitional period. The said provision does not, eittrer expressly or by necessary implication, override or dilute the binding regulatory regime framed by the UGC with respect to territorial jurisdiction. The two operate in distinct and independent domains, and cannot be conflated so as to confer legrtirnacy upon zrn otherwise impermissible exercise of jurisdiction. Section 95 is extracted her,:under for ready reference:

¶480

¶481

Secdoa 95. fiuorl^{opporfitnlti,es} lor^{quolltyhtgher educqtTon} to o,ll studeats.

¶482

In order to ensure^{equal opportunities} for^{qualityhigher edttcationto} allsfudentsinthesueessorStafes,theexistingadmissbnquotosin ollgouernm.entorpriu.ate,aidedorunaided,rnsfrtufionsofhigher' teclnical and^{medimleducationin *} far^{as it is prouidedunder} articte 371D^{of the bnstitntion,shallontinueas such for a period of} ten years during^{whichthe exi.sting @mmonadmission prcccss sha.ll} antinue-

¶483

tn Prof.^{Yashpal v.Stolte oJr Chhat'.;tsgolrh2,while} examining the^{validity of legistativemeasuresrelating to private} Universities, the^{Hon'bte supremecourt emptrasizedthat a} University must^{be an actually established institution, equipped} with the requisite^{infrastructure,teaching facutty and academic} environment, and.^{not a mere body created for the purpose of} conferring degrees.^{It was observed that the confermentof degrees} carries serious^{academic and societal consequences and, therefore,} cannot be dissociated^{from proper standards of educationand} institutional credibitity.^{Thisprinciptewas reiteratedin} Kurrnancholl Insti/lrfie^{o! Degree &Diptomaa'Chancello6} M.JP. Rohilkhand^{tlnluersitgl, whereinthe court held that} study centres,^{which partakethe characterof full-fledgedacademic} establishments,^{cannot be permittedto be establishedor operated} beyond the territorial^{jurisdiction of the parentuniversity, as any} such extra-territorial^{frrnctioningwould be contrar]rtothe} statutory scheme^{governing the Universit5r'}

¶484

r lzoos; 5 scc 42o 'lzoozy^{6 scc35}

¶485

/^I

¶486

¶487

2l'- Following the aforesaid dicta, this court, in B. sai Kircnrs cas€ (supra ll had occasion to consider an analogous issue concerning degrees obtained through distance education mode from Acharya Nagaduna University ilrrough study centres located in Tt:langana. upon an elaborate consideration of the uGC pubiic Notir:e and the statutory framework, this court categorically held that such degrees are not valid for ttre purpose of admission into hight:r educational courses within the state. The principte enunciated tierein is of direct relevance to the present case. Though the conrext in B. sal Kiran1= case (supra l) pertained to admirision, the invalidity of degrees obtained in violation of territ(,rial jurisdiction norms applies with equal, if not greater, for-ce in matters of public employment, where adherence to prescribed quaiit-rcations is of paramount importance-

¶488

22- Further, the impugned common order of the learned singte Judge does not advert to this foundational aspect of the matterThe direction to consider the candid.ature of the restrrondents opurel' on merit" proceeds on an irnplicit assumption that the degrees held by them consLitute vaLid educational qualifications. Such ,n assumption, in the considered view of this court, is fundanrenrally flawed- The rejection of the respondents, candid*ture by the TGpSC was-nof predicated upon an assessment of comparative merit, but upon a threshord issue of erigibility and the absence of a varid and recognized educational qualification.

¶489

¶490

[t is trite law that possession of the prescribed qualifrcation is a sine qua non tor consideration in a selection process. A candidate who does not satisfy the minimum eLigibility criteria cannot be considered for appointment, irrespective of^performance in the selection process. Any contrar5r view would render the eligibility conditions otiose and defeat the very object of maintaining standards in public recruitment-

¶491

[t is apposite to note that the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the present case does not fall within the ambit of the doctrine of^oNegative Equality," on the^premise that^the respondents had demonstrated instances of recruitments and promotions over a period of time wherein degrees obtained from the very s€rme Universit5r through distance education mode were accepted. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said finding is legally unsusta,inable and proceeds on an erroneous application of settled principles.

¶492

The doctrine of 'Negative Equalit/ lays down that Article¹⁴ of the Constitution embodies a positive concept of equaliqr and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or irregularity.^A benefrt erroneously conferred upon one individual, in contravention o[ [aw, does not create a colTesponding enforceabte right in favour of others to claim parity.^{Equalit5rbefore} law cannot^{be extended} to compel repetition of a wrong

¶493

¶494

¶495

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Fvljit Kaur o. Stf,te of

¶496

Ptu$aha, has categorically held as under:

¶497

13...--Artide I4 is not meant to perpetuate illegatity or fraud- Artide la of he Cnnstitution hos a psitive @n@pt. @uality is a tite, uthich cannot be daimed in iltegality and tlerefore, cannot be enfored by a citiz,en or aurt in a negatiue manrter. If an iileEality and hregularity t.-s been ammitted in fawur of an indiuidual or a group of individuals or a wrong order hrrs been passed. by a Judicial Forum, others cannot inwke tte jurisdidion of the higher or superior aurt for repeating or multiplying the same irregularitg or illegality or for passing wrong order_

¶498

The said dictum unequivocally arfirms that the doctrine of equality cannot be stretched to legitimise an otherwise unlawful act.

¶499

27- similarly, in state of Mdhga. pradesh a. Amit sftriuass, the Apex court reiterated that 'f so rle wrsons are giuen tl:rc benefit wronglg, that carutot form the basis of ctaiming tlw same relief," and further emphasised that the right to equality under Article 14 does not operate in negative terms. The ratio laid down therein squarely applies to cases where reliance is ptaced upon prior irregular or erroneous actions of the State.

¶500

[t is to be noted that ttre respondents herein seek to derive support from certain past recruitments and promotions wherein .{egrees obtained through distance education mode from Achar5ra Nagrrjuna Universit5r were accepted. However, the mere existence of sirch instances does not, ipso facto. estabLish their legality or confer a binding precedent upon the recruitirE,alrthority. On the

¶501

o 1zoto1 I I scc 45s 'lzozol^to scc 496

¶502

¶503

contrary, as borne out from the material on record,^{such instances} appear to have been made either in ignorance of, or in deviation from, the binding UGC norms^governing territorial^jurisdiction and recognition of degrees. The TGPSC, being a Constitutional body under Article 315 of tJ:e Constitution, is under a statutory obligation to ensure that recruitment is bohducted strictlyⁱⁿ accordance witl. the applicable rules and regulatory framework-^It cannot be compelled to perpetuate an illegality on^{the groundthat} a similar illegatity may have^been committed^{in the past.}

¶504

tt is to be noted that reliance^{placed by the respondents on} the^judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheo Shgam^u. Stcrte o! II.n.a is wholty misconceived. The said decision aroseⁱⁿ the context of a dispute relating to the^perioa of^{validityof a} waiting list post of Assistant Public Prosecutor^prepared by the Public Service Commission, and the limited^question that^{fetl for} consideration therein was whether such^period ought to^be reckoned from the date of the first^date of recommendation or^the last date of recommendation. The Apex Court^directed consideration of the appellants based on the last date^of recommendation- The ratio of tl.e said^judgment is thus confined to the operation and vatidity of a select list and does not, in^any manner, deal with or govern the issue of recognition or^validityof

61zoos1 ro scc 3 t4

edu,:ational qualifications obtained in contravention of statutory or regtrlatory norrns.

¶510

Further, it is equally untenable to place the reliance upon instances of appointments mad.e under NotifrcationNo-28/2017- It is a settled principle that each recruitment process is required to be tested on the basis of the terms and conditions governing that particular notification- [n t]re present case, the TGPSC, in explicit ternrs, incorporated the UGC Public Notice dated 27.06-2o-13 as a bincling condition of eligibility. The existence of prior recruitments, whir:h may have been conducted under a different regulatory franrework or prior to the crystallisation of the legal position, does not impose any obligation upon the TGPSC to dilute or disregard a clear statutory mandate forming part of the present notification. Past: practice, even if assumed, cannot override an express conrlition of eligibilit5r nor can it operate as a precedent to compel deviation from binding norms.

¶511

If the relief sought by tl.e respondents were to be granted, the inevitable consequence would be to compel the TGPSC to disregard a binding statutory direction issued by the UGC, which has been expressly incorporated into the recruitment notification. Such a course would not only run contrary to the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of &e Cqgi}tution, but would also erode the regtrlatory framework devised to maintain standards in higher education- Acceptance of degrees obtained in violation of territorial

\ \

jurisdiction norms would undermine the integrity of the selnection process and open the floodgates to similar claims from candidates possessing qualifications of doubtful legal validity. Such a direction would cause manifest prejudice to the appellants, who possess valid qualifications and have. se-cured meritorious positions. Permitting ineligible candidates to be considered would defeat their legitimate expectation of eligible meritorious candidates and dilute the prescribed eligibility standards, which is impermissible under the Constitutional mandate of equality in public employment.

¶516

I I

¶517

Conclusion

¶518

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the M.Li.Sc. degree obtained by the respondents from Acharya Nagarjuna University through distance education study cehtres in Telangana is not a valid qualification under Notification No.3O/2O22, being contrary to the UGC Public Notice dated 27.06.20 13, and thus the direction of the learned Single Judge to consider their candidature without deciding this foundational issue is legally unsustainable.

¶519

Accordingly, the W.A-Nos.176, 185, 190, 19I, 232,25L,258, 259 and 260 of 2026, are allowed. The common order dated 12.12.2C25 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.25531, 25837 and 24496 of 2C/24 is hereby set aside and. the said writ petitions shatl stand dismissed. Atl interim orders granted therein

t' !

f t, : i

shall stand vacated. The TGPSC and the concerned appointing

¶525

authorities are at tibert5r to proceed with the process of recruitment

¶526

to the post of Librarian strictly in accordance with law.