IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY JHE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 16 OF 2021 Between: 1. A Gopala Rao, S/o. Neelayya, Unemployee, R/o. Ramanagaram Village, Gumada Post, Seethampeta Mandai, Srikakulam District 532 460 and others 2. G.Manmadha Rao, S/o. Ananda Rao, aged 28 years,Unemployee, R/o. Kusumuru (V), Trukupai Post, Seethampet Mandai, Srikakulam District 532460. 3. K.Sankara Rao, S/o. Lachumayya, aged 25 years, Unehiployee, R/o. Kadagandi valasa(V), Kadagandi Post, Seethampeta Mandai, Srikakulam District 532458. 4. K.Gopala rao, S/o. Chinnasannai, aged 26 years. Unemployee, R/o. Pedavangara village, Kadagandi Post, Seethampeta Mandai, Srikakulam District 532458 5. K.Kantha Rack, S/o. Narasayya, aged 31 years. Unemployee, R/o. Pedarama (V&P), Seethampeta Mandai, Srikakulam District. 6. A.Sridevi, D/o. Kantha Rao, aged 26 years. Unemployee, R/o. Kosangi village, Gumada (P) Seethampeta Mandai, Srikakulam District 532460 7. A.Yasodha, D/o. Mukhalingam, aged 23 years, Unemployee, r/o. • Thumbakonda Village, Gumada Post, Seethampeta Mandal, Srikakulam District 532460. 8. V.Aruna Kumari, D/o. Sugreevulu, aged 20 years. Unemployee, R/o. Sara village, Kodisa PO Seethampeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. 9. B.Saraswathi, D/o.Appa Rao, aged 31 years. Unemployee, R/o. Pathapanukavalasa village, Pedduru Post, Seethampeta Mandal, Srikakulam District. I / ...PETITIONERS AND 1. The District Collector and Chair-Person, Special District Selection Committee, I.T.D.A., Seethampeta, Srikakulam Distric, 532443. 2. The Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Seethampeta, Srikakulam District. 3. The Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, I.T.D.A., Seethampet,Srikakulam District 4. The Commissioner and Director of Tribal Welfare, A.P., Hyderabad. 5. Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented By its Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (TW), Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 500 022. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the just claim of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of S.G. Teacher in Srikakulam District, pursuant to Special DSC Notification No. 1/2013, without any justification or reasonable cause on the untenable ground that the petitioners have not passed TET Examination even though the authorities have not conducted the same from May, 2012 onwards contrary to G.O.Ms.No. 51, dated 16- 4-2011 and seeking to consider the candidates with Graduation and D.Ed., contrary to the rules and further action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned Speaking Orders vide Rc.No.157/2013/H (TW) Dt. 06.04.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently set aside the and hold that the petitioners are entitled for selection and appointment to the posts of S.G. Teachers subject to passing the TET Examination within next two occasions with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper. same Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 20.02.2025 vide I.A.No.2 of 2024 in WP (A.T.) No.16 of 2021. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. THOTA S V L NARASIMHASWAMY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following Order: APHC010214482021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the eighth day of May, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Writ Petition (A.T.) No.16 of 2021 (O.A.No.5166 of 2013) Between: A. Gopala Rao and others ...Petitioners and The District Collector and Chairperson and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: I.Thota S. V. L. Narasimhaswamy Counsel for the respondents: I.G.P. for Services-li The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J W.P (AT) No.16 of 2021 ORDER: This writ petition is originally filed as O.A.No.5166 of 2013 before the Administrative Tribunal and after transfer of case to this High Court renumbered as present writ petition. The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the just claim of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of S.G. Teacher in Srikakulam District, pursuant to Special DSC Notification without any justification or rsasonabis cause on the untenable ground that the petitioners have not passed T.E.T. Examination even though the authorities have not conducted the same from May, 2012 onwards contrary to G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 16.04.2011 and seeking to consider the No. A /O O H O l/^U I o candidates with Graduation and D.Ed., contrary to the rules respondent in issuing the rd [and further action of the 3 impugned Speaking Orders vide Rc.No.157/2013/H(TW) Dt.06.04.2014]^ as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and consequently [set aside the same]^ and hold that the petitioners are entitled for selection and appointment to the posts of S.G. Teachers subject to passing the T.E.T. examination within next two occasions with all consequential benefits and pass...” ^ Added by amendment •VAdded by amendment 3 BSB/J W.P (AT) No.16 of 2021 2. The case of the petitioners is briefly as follows: a. The government issued A.P. Tribal Welfare Subordinate Service Rules, vide G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 28.06.2011. The post of Secondary Grade Teacher (S.G.T.) is included in Class-D, Category-1 of the said rules and the said post is to be filled by direct recruitment, qualifications prescribed for the said post is one must possess Intermediate Certificate issued by the Board of Intermediate Education and Diploma in Education Certificate issued by the Commissioner for Government Examinations, A.P., apart from passing Teachers Training Eligibility Test Certificate (A.P.T.E.T.). The petitioners are eligible to the post of S.G.T., which are notified by the 1 Notification No.1/2013, except passing T.E.T. Their applications The respondent under were not received on the ground that they did not pass T.E.T., which was not conducted after May, 2012 as required under G.O.Ms.No.51, School Education, dated 16.04.2001. Though the petitioners were well prepared for appearing the T.E.T., they could not get chance to appear the same as the examination was not conducted. The petitioners sought exemption from T.E.T., by filing the aforesaid O.A. before the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the interim relief, dated 05.07.2013, as follows: “Pending disposal of the O.A., the respondents are directed to receive the applications of the applicants, who have passed Intermediate and D.Ed., pursuant to Special DSC Notification No. 1/2013 in Srikakulam District and consider their selection and appointment, if they come within the zone of consideration and no other eligible candidates are available, subject to their passing of TET examination, as and when it is held.” \ iir 4 BSB,J W.P (AT) No.16 of 2021 . Thereafter, as the interim order was not complied, C.A.No.417 of before the Administrative Tribunal. b. . 2014 was filed by the petitioners Then, a speaking order was passed by the Deputy Director, (TW) FAC, Seethampeta, vide Rc.No.157/2013/H (TW), dated 06.04.2014, that the have not passed A.P. T.E.T. examination and they were and selection for S.G.T. posts. The order. petitioners ineligible for appointment dated 06.04.2014 reads as under; O.A.No.5166 of 2013, certain ST un-employees D.Ed qualification have approached the Hon’ble APAT, f SGTs in In with Hyderabad for TET exemption to the posts of Scheduled areas in TW Department. the Hon’ble APAT, Hyderabad has Accordingly passed the following interim order. “Pending disposal of the O.A., the respondents are directed to receive the application of the applicants, who have passed and D.Ed. pursuant to Spl. DSC notification Intermediate No.01/2013 in Srikakulam District and consider their selection within the zone of and appointment, if they come consideration and no other eligible candidates are available subject to condition of their passing of TET Examination, as and when it is held.” It is to inform that vide ref. 2"“ cited above, clarification sought from Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, A.P has been Hyderabad, whether the candidature of ST, D.Ed candidates for the posts of SGTs with TET exemption is eligible or not. cited above. the rd vide ref. 3 of Tribal Welfare, AP, Hyderabad has given Accordingly, Commissioner 5 BSB,J W.P(AT) No.16 of 2021 clarification “As per the Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009, there is no provision for exemption of AP TET examination”. Therefore, it is informed that the candidature of the applicants in the O.A.No.5166 of 2013 and C.A.No.417/2014 of APAT, Hyderabad is not considered as per RTE ACT, 2009.” The C.A. was closed recording that a speaking order was passed. c. Long thereafter, the petitioners got the prayer in the O.A. amended after the file was transferred to this High Court from the Administrative Tribunal. 3. The 1®^ petitioner filed better affidavit on 27.01.2025 on behalf of the petitioners. The facts additionally averred in the better affidavit are as follows: 4. The posts now notified in the year 2013 for filling up backlog vacancies and a special Notification exclusively for S.T. candidates could not be filled due to non-availability of S.T. local candidates. Therefore, it is just and proper to receive the applications of the petitioners for the posts of S.G.T., in terms of Special Recruitment Notification No.1 of 2013, as there is no local S.T. candidate available with intermediate and D.Ed. along with T.E.T. qualification. Though the notification for conducting T.E.T. examination was issued in the month of September, 2013 and the examination was conducted on 16.03.2014 and the petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 passed the said examination. Similarly, the 9^^ petitioner also passed the T.E.T. in the year 2017. The 4‘^ and 5'^ petitioners failed in the T.E.T. The petitioner succeeded in getting employment in other department. The 9‘^ petitioner passed the a. 6 BSBJ W.P(AT) No.16 of 2021 T.E.T. examination in the year 2017. As such, the claim in the present writ petition is restricted to the petitioners No.1,2, 3, 7 and 8. While the writ petition is pending, the 3'^'^ respondent issued speaking orders, amended. Hence, it is prayed to consider the case of the petitioners for selection and appointment to the post of S.G.T. The 3'^^ respondent filed counter with the following averments: b. Therefore, the prayer in the writ petition was 5. The Government had conducted AP T.E.T. examination in July, 2011, January, 2012, May, 2012, September, 2013 and May, 2015. The petitioners have not passed the said test at the time of notification and selection through Spl. D.S.C., 2013 which is mandatory. Hence, their candidature was not considered as they do not possess the requisite qualifications. a. The twenty-five vacancies of S.G.Ts notified in Spl. D.S.C., 2013 remained unfilled due to lack of eligible candidates with T.E.T. qualification and those posts cannot be filled with ineligible applicants. Out of the 25, six (6) vacancies were filled due to transfer of some regular teachers to scheduled area schools. The remaining 19 unfilled S.G.T. posts have been immediately notified in the subsequent Spl. D.S.C., 2014 and sixteen (16) S.G.T. posts were filled leaving three (3) vacancies for PHC (VH-2) and Ex. Servicemen (1) which cannot be filled with other candidates. b. c. ' G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.01.2000, which reserves 100% posts in favour of local STs of scheduled areas is no more valid in view of the judgment of the apex Court. C.A.No.417 of 2014 in O.A.No.5166 of 2013 has also been closed. 7 '^■P(AT)No.l6of?021 Of the above, it is devoid of merits. prayed to dismiss the '^'/rit petition as it is 6. The petitioners counter filed reply to the counter of denying the respondent IMo.3 mainly contending that examinatior^eTeforir """" efore. ,t ,s finally prayed averments and petitioners never sought any the passed the T.E.T. the writ petition. to allow 7. The main grievance of the not conducted appearing to the petitioners is that examination was qualified for however as the T.E.T. as per the schedule post of they could not be Secondary Grade Teachers; as per the interim order otthe Tribunal, the petitioners Mo. l to examination conducted year 2013. Since the 3 and 7 and 8 got through the issued in the Notification i pursuant to the petitioners No.4 to not qualify as 6 did required under the iinterim order of the not Tribunal, they '■epresentatiorr of the learned represented that the pursuing the relief for the petitioners. are as per the He further counsel another job also. petitioner No.6 got 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted examination 16.04.2001 that as T.E.T. , dated appear for the examination, if the and still relying . School Act. He further as required under G.O.Ms.No. was not ^5 61, School Education conducted they could not examination and therefore speaking order on the they are eligible in the was passed i ignoring the interim direction Qualification requirement of as per G.O.Ms.No.51, and the Right to Education Education, dated 16.04.2001 submitted that even as on date. vacancies are available. 8 BSB,J W.P (AT) No.16 of 2021 On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-ll submits that they were not qualified, their candidature cannot be considered. 9. As per G.O.Ms.No.51, it was decided by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to conduct T.E.T. every year twice once in June / July and another in December / January. But, admittedly, T.E.T. was not conducted in June / July 2012 and December 2012 / January, 2013, yet the notification No. 1/2013 was issued disabling the petitioners who were the aspirants to go for the posts of S.G.T. Thus, the interim order was passed on 05.07.2013. Even then not considering the eligibility of those petitioners who got through the T E T conducted next to the interim order in September, 2013 is illegal. Since the petitioner No.9 could get through T.E.T. only in the year 2017, she is not eligible. Therefore, the petitioners Nos.1 to 3, 7 and 8 are entitled to the relief of selection to the posts, subject to reservation, if any, and rules thereof. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the speaking orders of the 3'"'^ respondent, vide Rc.No.157/2013/H(TW), dated 06.04.2014, with a direction to the respondents to appoint, within four (4) months, the petitioners No.1 to 3, 7 and 8 as Secondary Grade Teachers in the posts subject to reservation, if any, and rules thereof. 11. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REG!SJF(AR OFFICER //TRUE COPY// / SEC To, 1. The District Collector and Chair-Person, Special District Selection Committee, I.T.D.A., Seethampeta, Srikakulam District, 532443. 2. The Project Officer, I.T.D.A., Seethampeta, Srikakulam District. 3. The Deputy Director, Tribal Welfare, I.T.D.A., Seethampet,Srikakulam District 4. The Commissioner and Director of Tribal Welfare, A.P. Hyderabad. 5. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare (TW), Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 500 022. 6. One CC to SRI. THOTA S V L NARASIMHASWAMY Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for SERVICES II ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies vna \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:08/05/2025 ORDER WP(AT).No.16 of 2021 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION(AT) WITHOUT COSTS