K DEVAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS batch of writ petitions challenges the clause 12(3)(iii) of the recruitment notification dated 06.02.2012 issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education in his capacity as Ex-Officio Project Director, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shikhsha Abhiyan (RMSA).

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that by virtue of the impugned clause recruitment for the posts of Principal, Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) and Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) was restricted to such of the candidates, who have studied in English medium. or the post of Principal it was stipulated that the candidates must have studied in English medium at any three levels of School/Junior College/Degree College/Post Graduation and for the posts of the PGT as well as TGT, one must have studied in English medium at any two levels of School/Junior College/Degree College/Post Graduation. All the petitioners claim that they are otherwise qualified as per the eligibility stipulated and only on account of the restriction aforesaid, they are excluded from consideration for direct recruitment notified under the impugned notification. Thus, the petitioners in this batch of cases though are having different qualifications and are seeking consideration of their respective case for different posts, admittedly, none of them are qualified with reference to the impugned requirement of having studied in English medium, as stated above. To that extent, therefore, the notification is questioned in the respective writ petitions. Background facts:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in V.N. SUNANDA REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (AIR 1995 SC 914)for the proposition that the State cannot justify such classification of meritorious candidates into Telugu medium candidates and Non-Telugu medium candidates and thereby, 5% weightage of total average marks sought to be given to Telugu medium candidates by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission was declared violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in DISTRICT SELECTION COMMITTEE v. M. VENUGOPAL (2003 (5) ALD 512)wherein the candidature of petitioner therein for recruitment of teachers in the Zilla Parishad Schools was rejected on the ground that the said petitioner did not study Telugu as first language up to SSC. The imposition of such requirement was held not binding and the orders of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, which had set aside the said requirement, was upheld. Reliance is also placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court in THE GUJARAT UNIVERSITY, AHMEDABAD v. KRISHNA RANGANATH MUDHOLKAR (AIR 1963 SC 703),particularly, paras 23 and 27 to contend that legislation relating to imposition of an exclusive medium of instruction in regional language, which was questioned, was declared invalid in view of exclusive legislative power conferred on the union in list I item 66 and as such, the State of Gujarat had no power, as power to legislate on subject of education including that of universities was entrusted to Parliament. LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR v. SHRI TRILOKI NATH KHOSA (1974) 1 SCC 19)as well as in AASHIRWAD FILMS v. UNION OF INDIA (2007) 6 SCC 624).