APHC010293422023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15082/2023 Between: 1. PATI SIMHACHALAM, S/O. POWDAYYA, AGED 52 YEARS. 2. V.V.ESWARA RAO,, S/O. KONDALAYYA, AGED 53 YEARS. 3. U.A.NARSINGA RAO,, S/O. LINGAYYA, AGED 58 YEARS. 4. KORRA SHEMO,, S/O. SALMON, AGED 52 YEARS. 5. GONDI KRISHNAYYA,, S/O. BODAYYA, AGED 57 YEARS. 6. CH.RAMPRASAD,, S/O. ADI NARAYANA, AGED 52 YEARS. 7. PALASI NEELAKANTHAM,, S/O. GUNDU NAIDU, AGED 51 YEARS. 8. SAKANGI JAGANNADHAM,, S/O. CHINA BALANNA, AGED 54 YEARS. 9. PANGI RAMAYYA,, S/O. LAKSHMAYYA, AGED 51 YEARS. 10. DESEDI BABU RAO,, S/O. BALAYYA DORA, AGED 53 YEARS. 11. S.BHEEMA LINGESWARA SWAMY,, S/O. NEELAYYA DORA, AGED 56 YEARS. (ALL ARE FOR THE SERVICES, NOTICES ETC. PATI SIMHACHALAM, S/O. POWDAYYA, R/O. FLAT NO.408, ANNAPURNA APARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR SARADA NAGAR, NARSIPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.) ...PETITIONER(S) 2 AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 4. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, ZONE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned action of the 1St respondent in issuing impugned Government Memo No.1438516/Ser.1/A1/2021, dt 14.06.2023, for filling up the posts of ,Vlandal Educational Officers-II and the consequential action of 2nd respondent in proceeding to fill up the posts of Mandal Educational Officer-II, that too with the persons working in Zilla Parishad management schools as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.154 School Education(Services.1) Department, dt 16.09.2022, and further action of the 2nd respondent in declaring the petitioners as ineligible for the posts of Mandal Educational Officer, vide the impugned Memo.No.ESE02-13024/49/2022, dt 07.05.2023, though petitioners possessed prescribed and higher qualifications i.e., Bachelor in Arts and B.Ed., as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. consequently set aside the impugned Memo.No.ESE02-13024/49/2022, dt 07.05.2023 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 3 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 pleased to grant interim suspension of the impugned Memo No.ESE02- 13024/49/2022, dt 07.05.2023, consequently to consider the petitioners for promotion/appointment by transfer, to the post of Mandal Educational Officer on the basis of B.A, B.Ed. qualification possessed by petitioners, as per Adhoc Rule framed in G.O.Ms.No.282, General Administration, dt 20.09.2003, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may be pleased to grant leave to file counter affidavit in W.P.No. 15082 of 2023 in the interest of justice and may be pleased to pass. IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 May be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner to file the reply affidavit, for better adjudication of the case,in the interest of Justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G V SHIVAJI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY W.P.No.15082 of 2023 O R DE R: In this writ petition, Petitioners are questioning the action of the 1st Respondent in filling up the posts of Mandal Educational Officer-II vide Government Memo No.1438516/Ser.I/A1/2021 dated 14.06.2023 from persons working in Zilla Parishad Management Schools without considering the case of the Petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.154 School Education (Services.1) Department dated 16.09.2022. 2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition are as under: The Petitioners were initially selected in DSC 1989 and were appointed in March, 1990 as untrained Secondary Grade Teachers. Subsequently, were promoted as Low Female Literacy Headmasters, which is re-designated as Primary School Headmasters. While so, the Government issued A.P.School Education Service Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (Service-II) Department dated 23.01.2009 (Adhoc Rules) prescribing certain qualifications for the post of Head Masters Grade-II. As the Petitioners are having requisite qualifications as per the Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.9, they are eligible for promotion to the post of Head 5 Masters Grade-II and its equivalent post of Mandal Educational Officer. 3. In the year 2017, the 3rd Respondent issued final seniority list of School Assistants i.e equivalent cadre for promotion to the post of Headmaster Grade-II under Government management, in which, Petitioners are placed at Sl.Nos.21, 23, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 33. The promotions were effected up to the Petitioners and the Respondents were proceeding to effect promotions and have issued seniority list of School Assistants and in the list, the Petitioners are shown as ineligible as they are not having intermediate qualification, which is in contravention to the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.9 dated 23.01.2009. As the Petitioners are possessing higher qualification, which is required qualification under the Adhoc Rules, the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners as ineligible is not sustainable. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.5, it is stated that the Petitioners were appointed as untrained Teachers with S.S.C. qualification and later obtained T.T.C. and appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers during 1990. Later, they were promoted as Low Female Literacy Head Masters designated as Primary School Head Masters, which is equivalent to School Assistants as 6 per G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 23.01.2009. Subsequently, the Petitioners had acquired Degree qualification without having five years of further study to acquire a degree with B.Ed. i.e. SSC + Inter/Diploma (2 years) + Degree (3 years) + Professional i.e. B.Ed., (1 years) bypassing Intermediate qualification. Hence, the Petitioners are not eligible for promotion to the post of Grade-II Head Masters. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per the orders issued vide reference G.O.Ms.No.154, School Education (Ser.I) Department dated 16.09.2022 and Progs.Rc.No.ESE02- 11022/18/2023-EST 1-CSE dated 16.06.2023, the posts of Mandal Educational Officers-II are filled with the existing Mandal Educational Officers of Z.P.Management and with the Headmasters Grade-II in Z.P. Management and conversion orders are issued to the existing Mandal Educational Offices and Headmasters Grade-II in Z.P. Management on 18.06.2023 but not with the candidates below the rank of Headmasters Grade-II i.e. School Assistants. The contention of the Petitioners to consider their case for promotion/appointment by transfer to the post of Mandal Educational Officer on the basis of B.A, B.Ed., qualification is not feasible as the Petitioners belongs to Low Female Literacy Headmasters category which was not 7 equivalent to Grade-II Headmasters and their next promotion category is Grade-II Headmasters. 6. In the reply affidavit, it was pleaded that the Petitioners were appointed in the year 1989 through regular DSC notification. It was further pleaded that the Respondent-State with a view to provide impetus to education in agency areas had issued G.O.Ms.No.223 Education (Services III-2) Department on 01.07.1989 relaxing training qualification i.e Teacher Training Certificate for recruitment as SGT/Special Teachers in favour of SC and ST candidates, subject to the condition that the Teacher Training Certificate would be acquired in 2 years time. It is further stated that the State Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.190 Education Department on 13.10.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.302 dated 10.7.1986 to the effect that the Scheduled Tribes with X class pass or fail should be appointed as Teachers in primary schools. It was stated that as the Petitioners were appointed as SGT with SSC qualification and there was no occasion for the Petitioners to pursue intermediate. 7. It was further pleaded in the reply affidavit that the Petitioners pursued the B.Ed course availing in-service allowances as permitted vide G.O.Ms.No.342 Social Welfare Department dated 30.08.1977 8 and the B.Ed qualification was entered in the Service Register of the Petitioners. 6. Heard Sri G.V.Shivaji, learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Services-III for the Respondents. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Petitioners possess the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster Grade-II and its equivalent post of Mandal Educational Officers. 8. Reasoning: Before delving into the controversy involved in this case, the undisputed facts are that the Petitioners had acquired Bachelor's Degree in Arts in different years from Andhra University and also acquired B.Ed., qualification after joining the service. Some of the Petitioners i.e. Petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 11 did Post Graduation in M.A. also. It is also not in dispute that the Petitioners were SSC qualified and had TTC training at the time of initial appointment. 9. The Rules governing the appointment to the post of Headmaster Grade-II (Gazetted) in Government Schools were originally provided in G.O.Ms.No.9, School Education (SER.II) Department dated 23.01.2009. As per Rule 2, the method of 9 appointment is by recruitment by transfer from Class-I of the A.P. Educational Subordinate Service of Government Schools. The method of appointment and qualification is prescribed in Rules 2 and 3 thereof, which reads as under: Rule 2. Method of Appointment and Appointing authority : Method of appointment and appointing authority to the post is specified below: Method of appointment Appointing authority 1 2 I) Recruitment by transfer from Class 1 of A.P., School Educational Subordinate Service of Government Schools. Regional Joint Director of School Education concerned Rule 3. Qualification: "No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master Grade-II unless he possesses Bachelor's Degree in Arts / Science/Commerce and its equivalent and B.Ed. Degree or the General Educational Qualification of SSC and five years of further study to acquire a degree and professional qualifications ie. B.Ed./B.P.Ed./ Pandit Training." 9. The qualification for appointment as per the above Rule is that a person to be eligible for promotion should have either of the qualifications i.e ; 10 Bachelors Degree in Arts / Science/Commerce and its equivalent and B.Ed. Degree or the General Educational Qualification of SSC and five years of further study to acquire a degree and professional qualifications ie. B.Ed./B.P.Ed./ Pandit Training. 10. On a plain reading of the above Rule, the Petitioners working as Headmaster Grade-I (LFL), which is a Class-I Post of the A.P.Educational Subordinate Service of Government Schools and having a qualification of Bachelor's Degree in Arts and B.Ed, are qualified for appointment to Head Master Grade-II. It is to be noted that the State was conscious of persons similarly placed as Petitioners, who acquired a bachelor's degree in Arts / Science / Commerce after appointment in the department and such a qualification was made eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master Grade-II, as the above Rules were framed long after the Petitioners joined service. 11. The alternative qualification is the normal mode of study i.e, General Educational Qualification of SSC and five years of further study to acquire a degree i.e, 10th class+intermediate+Bachelor's degree and professional qualifications ie. B.Ed./B.P.Ed./ Pandit Training. 11 12. The above Rule was amended vide G.O.Ms.No.29 Education (SE.SER.I) Department dated 23.6.2010 and the same reads as under; "No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post of Head Master Grade-Il unless he possess Bachelors Degree in Arts / Science/Commerce and its equivalent and B.Ed. Degree or the General Educational Qualification of SSC and five years of further study to acquire a degree and professional qualifications ie. B.Ed./B.P.Ed./ Pandit Training. Further, the school assistants/language pandits who possessed SSLC/SSc/HSC/MPHSC,Intermediate and later obtained oriental title degree after further studies of 5,4,3 years after SSLC/SSC/HSC/Intermediate respectively and possessed pandit training are eligible for promotion to the post of Gazetted Head master Gr.II. The school assistants/language pandits who possessed oriental title and Pandit training and subsequently acquired lower qualification of SSLC/SSC/HSC/Intermediate respectively are not eligible for promotion to the post of Gazetted Head master Gr.II." 12. The Highlighted portion of the above Rule was introduced under the amendment and it is based on this amended Rule, the impugned memo was issued rejecting the representation of petitioners for promotion. The scope and purport of the amendment is explained in the following paragraphs. 12 13. To understand the scope of the amendment, it is necessary to refer to A.P.School Education Subordinate Service Rules, 2009, framed vide G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 23.1.2009. (These Rules were referred to in Rule 2 of the present Rules i.e, G.O.Ms.No.9). The Rules prescribe qualifications and method of appointment for the posts of School Assistants, Headmaster Primary School (LFL) as well as to the feeder posts of Secondary Grade Teacher, Elementary/Higher Grade Teacher, Language Pandits of various languages and other posts. 14. The posts of School Assistants, Headmaster Primary School (LFL) come under Class-I and Category 1-22. The posts of Secondary Grade Teacher, Elementary/Higher Grade teacher, Language Pandits of various languages come under Class-II Category 1-25. The method of appointment to the post of School Assistant of Class-I upto Category 17 is (i) by direct recruitment (ii) by promotion from categories 1-25 of Class-II (iii) By Recruitment by transfer of Junior Assistants in A.P.Ministerial Service. The Post of Head Master Grade-I of Class-I Category 22 is by promotion only from the post of Secondary Grade Teacher i.e Class-II Category-I. 15. The qualifications are prescribed in Rule 5 to all the posts covered therein. For appointment to the post of Language Pandit in 13 any other language i.e., Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Urdu etc., the candidates must possess Bachelor Degree with the respective language as the main subject of three equal optional subjects or a PG Degree or an Oriental title or its equivalent and B.Ed with respective language as methodology or pandit training or its equivalent. Though, oriental title is referred to as a qualification for appointment as a language pandit, unlike Hindi, no recognised institution was named therein. 16. As regards the qualification for Language Pandit (Hindi), the course title of “Madhyama” offered by an private institution named Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (visarada), Allahabad in Hindi among other course titles like Ratna, Praveen, Sahityalankar etc., offered by private institutions across the country was recognised as a sufficient qualification for appointment as Hindi Teacher/Language pandit (Hindi) as per G.O.Ms.No.1415 Edn. dated 22.7.1970. The G.O does not mention of requirement of SSC/SSLC/Intermediate as a qualification for appointment for appointment as Hindi Teacher. 17. Even the present Rules G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 23.01.2009, the qualifications prescribed for Language Pandit (HIndi) recognize these private academic qualifications given in the tabulated statement therein as sufficient qualification for appointment as 14 Language Pandit (Hindi). This qualification is unique to Language Pandit (Hindi) only. The qualifications for Language Pandit (HIndi) as per Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No.11 dated 23.01.2009 is extracted below for better understanding; II By Direct recruitment for categories 3 to 25 4 Language Pandit (Hindi) a) Academic Qualifications : Sl.No. Course Title Institution Govt Order a Madhyama Hindi Sahitya Sammelan (Visarada) Alahabad G.O.Ms.No. 1415, Edn, Dated: 22.07.1970. b Ratna Rashtrabhasa Prachar Samiti, Warda -do- c Praveen Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras -do- d Sahityalankar Hindi Vidyapeet, Deoghar -do- e Pandit Maharashtra Bhasa Sabha, Poona -do- f Vidwan Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad -do- g Sevak Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Ahmedabad -do- h Visharad Diploma Dakshina Bharata Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras -do- 15 i Sahitya Ratna Diploma Hindi Sahitya Sameelan, Allahbad -do- j Vidwan Madras University -do- k Bhasha Praveena Title (Hindi) Andhra University -do- l Sahitya Bhushan Hindi Vidyapeet Deoghar -do- m Sastry Degree Sri Kasi Vidya Peeth, Benaras. -do- n Hindi Kovid Degree Sri Kasi Vidya Peeth, Benaras. -do- o Bharatiya Hindi Parangat Diploma Akila Bharateeya Hindi Parishad, Agra -do- p Hindi Bhushan Diploma Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad -do- q B.A. or B.O.L. Any university with Hindi as special subject -do- b) Training Qualifications: a B.Ed Dakshina Bharata Hindi G.O.Ms. No.68 b (Hindi Medium) Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad Edn.Dt 10-3-95 c Prachark (Including Praveena) Diploma Dakshina Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, Madras. As per Andhra Prades h Educati onal Rules 16 d Pracharak Diploma Hindistani Prachar Sabha, Wardha. -do- e Sikshana Kala Praveena- Diploma Akhila Bharateeya Hindi Parishad, Agra -do- f Hindi Shikshak (including Hindi Vidwan Diploma) Hindi Prachara Sabha, Hyderabad -do- g Pandits Training Certificate Commissioner for Government Examinations -do- h Hindi Shikshan Parangat Hindi Shikshna Nishnat Kendriaya Hindi Shikshnak G.O.Ms. No.1504 , Edn, Dated:1 1.61964 18. The effect of the amendment is that the first part of the amendment extracted above recognises qualification in course titles offered by various institutions as tabulated above as equivalent to bachelor's degree for appointment to the post of Head Master Grade-II. 19. The latter part of the Amended Rule prohibits the appointment of those language pandits(Hindi) who secured SSLC/SSC/HSC/Intermediate after having oriental title and Pandit training to the post of Head Master Grade-II. This latter part of the Amended Rule, in contextual understanding, should be understood as being with regard to language pandits(Hindi) only and none else. This understanding would be apparent on a reading 17 of G.O.Ms.No.1415 Education Department dated 22.07.1970 which enabled appointments to the post of Hindi Teachers/Language Pandit (Hindi) only on the qualifying in the course/titles offered in Hindi by private institutions. The qualifications of SSLC/SSC/HSC/Intermediate does not appear to be a requirement on a reading of G.O.Ms.No.1415 dated 22.07.1970. For better understanding, G.O.Ms.No.1415 dated 22.07.1970 is extracted below: The Government of India, in their letter first read above, have accorded permanent recognition to the Hindi Examinations conducted by certain Voluntary Hindi Organisations in the country for purposes of employment and requested this Government to accord similar recognition to the said examinations for purpose of employment under this State Government. 2. The Government have examined the question of according permanent recognition to the Hindi examinations in consultation with the Director of Public Instruction and the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission and have decided to grant permanent recognition to the various Hindi examinations as specified in the annexure to this order for purposes of appointment to the posts of Hindi teachers in the schools and colleges in the State. 3. The Government hereby clarify that the above recognition is only in regard to the standard of Hindi prescribed in the equivalent Hindi examination and it is not to 18 be treated as equivalent to the fulfledged Certificate or degree of the examination to which it has been equated. 20. Secondly, the other way of looking at the case is that the first point of the Rule for appointment as Head Master Grade-II enables persons with Bachelors degree and B.Ed to be appointed. To read the latter part of the Rules enabling persons with Bachelors degree and B.Ed would be contradictory and such an understanding of the Rule is to be avoided. It is a matter of common knowledge that the Rules have to be understood contextually and harmoniously to avoid absurdity. Going by the understanding of the Respondents, the first part of the Rule enables persons with a Bachelor's Degree and B.Ed for appointment to the post of Head Master Grade-II, but the latter part of the Rule contradicts the same. Such an understanding of the Rule should be avoided and a workable interpretation should be provided. The interpretation of the Rule as provided by this Court in the earlier paragraphs makes the Rule workable. 21. On the aspect of interpretation of statutes, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh1, held that if plain reading of a Rule leads to contradiction which is not intended, a 1 AIR 1955 SC 830 19 construction which modifies the meaning of the words can be adopted. The relevant portion at paragraph 6 is extracted below; ....But it is a rule of interpretation well-established that, “Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence”. (Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, 10th Edn., p. 229). Reading the proviso along with clause (b) thereto, and construing it in its setting in the section, we are of opinion that notwithstanding the wideness of the language used, the proviso contemplates notice only to persons who are not parties to the petition. 22. The above judgement was quoted in a number of judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court till date. In Independent Sugar Corpn. Ltd. v. Hindustan National Gas & Industries Ltd. (Resolution Professional)2, after referring to the above quoted judgement held at paragraph 200 that a statute must be construed in a manner which makes it workable. “200. The literal interpretation is not an inviolable rule. The decisions referred to supra, while underlying the principle involved in literal interpretation, had laid down that the literal interpretation, if it leads to hardship, inconsistency, defeats the working of the statute, and acts counterproductive to the purpose and object sought to be achieved by the statute. A statute must be construed in such a manner as to make it workable.” 2 (2025) 5 SCC 209 20 23. Thirdly, the latter part of the Rule prohibits only those candidates who secure SSLC/SSC/HSC/Intermediate after acquiring oriental title and pandit training. As mentioned above, the Petitioners are not appointed on oriental qualification and training nor did they acquire SSLC/SSC/HSC/Intermediate qualification subsequent thereto. Therefore, the latter part of the amended Rule has no application for considering the Petitioners for promotion to the post of Head Master Grade-II. 24. In the light of the above, the Petitioners, having the qualification of a Bachelor's Degree in Arts/ Science/Commerce and B.Ed. Degree, are entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Headmaster-Grade-II as per the Rules. 25. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for appointment to the post of Head Master Grade-II as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 31.10.2025 KLP