I

[ 3488 I

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

NOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

THE

2. A.

Vi

3. D.

4.

Nos.f76 259 AND 20261 1

WA.NO:76 0F 2026

Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order

212025 in W.P.No.25531 of 2O24 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

1. Vil Kumar, S/o. V. Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, RIo. H.No.g-6-345,

r, Karimnagar-505001, Telangana

dated 1

H 1

ia, D/o. Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No.7-g3, polasa

, Jagitial (M) and District

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

ipalli,Veenavanka, Karimnagar

Sameera Noorin, D/o. ft/ohd. Madar

-7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally

Saheb, Aged about 26 years, Rl/o.

(M), Jayashankar Bhupalapally-

5. M.

Mai

NageshKumar, S/o.Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, Ftto.g-1-114,

ypally, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy

K.ran Kumar, S/o.Gopal, Aged about 40 years, FUo.H.No.1-3-12Ot1

Bhongir (M), YadadriBhongiri District Telangana-SOgl 16

ka, D/o.Mahabood, Aged about 27 years, R/o. H.No.1-3-BAO0Z,Banjara

68

Bhongir, Yadadri district, Telangana-S081 16.

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

6.

7.

H

8.8

(M), bad District, Telangana-5O4307

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

AND

1. Sof Telangana, Represented by its prl.

Secretary, Higher Education

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

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

Tank Hyderabad

3.CommissioneroflntermediateEducation,GovernmentofTelangana

- 311"ff33,:.., of rechnical Education, Government of relangana Hvderabad'

...RESPONOENTS/RESPON

DENTS

5. A.Vijay'achandra Reddy, S/o. Adi Reddy Aged 31 Years Occu Unemployee

R/o H.l\o.7165i Mankimmathota Karimnagar Karimnagar District

-.

,l

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

Nizamabad District

7. M Chirrneshwar, s/o Bhumaiah Aged 35 Years BCB Occu unemployee Rl/o

H.No.ut631lf f{agampet Mupkal Mandal Nizamabad District

S.ASaiSujitReddy'S/oSudhakarReddyAged34YearsEWSoccu

unemploy"" nyo ri.iio.g1 1

g

1 Bhagatnagar Karimnagar Karimnagar District

9. J Aravind, s/o Narayana Aged gi veals BCA occu Unemployee R/o H'No'

167 V;rllabhapuram Cnir"ri" Mandal Suryapet District'

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

...RESPONDE NTSfWRIT PETITIONERS

2

NO:1OF

Between:

p.sad;rnandam, s/o. Raiaiah, Age 36 years, occ Un-Employee, R/o

Akken,apally Village, Nan gnoor Mandal, Siddipet District'

...APPELLANT/

12th RESPONDENT IN W.P.NO.24r';96 AF 2024

Petition under Section 151'cPc praying that in the circumstances stated in

theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighCourtmaybepleasedto

suspend the orders passed, in w.P. No. 25531 of 2024' Dated 12-12-2025'

CounselfortheAppellants:SRIG.VIDYASAGAR,SENIoRCoUNSELFoR

SRI( SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM

CounsetfortheRespondentNos'1'3&4:SRIGPRASANTH'AGPFOR

SERVICES.I

CounselfortheRespondentNo.2:SRIP.S.RAJASEKHAR,ScFoRTGPSC

;;;;;i ion the d""iona"nt Nos'5 r,o e: sRl M'V'RAMA RAo

Counsel forthe Respondent No'10: --

IIYA NO: {85 OF 2026

Writ.Appeat-underclausel5oftheLettersPatentPreferredAgainstorder

Dated 12t1'.r-t2025 in w.p.No.24496 0f 2024, on the fite of the High court.

3

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Technical Education

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad -

2. The Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary'

Prathibha Bhavan, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad'

3- The Commissioner of Technical Education, Department of Technical

Education, HYderabad, Telangana-

4. The Commissioner of lntennediate Education, Board of lntermediate,

Nampally, HYderabad.

5. V.Rnit Kumar, S/o. V.Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, FUo. H-No.9-6-345,

Ramnagar, Karimnagar - 505001, Telangana'

6. A. Soni-a, D/o. Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No-7-83, Polasa

Village, Jagitial (trd) and Jagitial District'

7. O.XonOatreOdy, S/o. D.Komalreddy, Aged about 31 years, R/o. H.No.1-83,

Deshaipalli, Veenavanka, Karimnagar.

8. Mohd. Sameera Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Mada Saheb, Aged about 26 years,

R/o.H.No.1 -77t1, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpally -

5061 68.

g. M.Nagesh Kumar, S/o. Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, R/o. 8-1-114,

Mailareddypally, Rajendranagar, Ranga Reddy'

lO.K.Kiran Kumar, Slo. Gopal, Aged about 40 years, Fl/o.H.No-1-3-12011,

Kisannagar, Bhongir(M), Yadadri Bhongiri District, Telangana - 508116.

1 1 . Maleka, b/o. Mahibood, Aged about 27 years, R/o. H-No-1-3-BAO07, Banjara

Hills, Bhongir, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana - 508116.

12.B.Mamatha-, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o- Malyal (V), Echoda

(M), Adilabad District, Telangana - 504307 '

(Respondents No.S to 12 not necessary parties)

...RESPONDENTS /

RESPONDENTS

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

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

District.

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-

l$.Mohammad Zareena, W/o. Mohammad lmam, Aged 36 years, Occ . Un-

.

employee, Ryo.. H.No.14-7-25, Pandurangiapuram, tsallepalle (v&M),

Khammam Ufian, Khammam District-

...RESPONDENTS/

PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.24496 OF 2024

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

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

4

the operation of the common orders passed in W.P.No.24496 of 2O24 dated

1211212024 p,:nding disposal of the Writ Appeal.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.SURENDER RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI RAMA RAO KILARU

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.I,3 & 4: SRI G.PRASANTH, AGP FOR

SERVICES-I

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: --

WA NO: 190 OF 2026

Writ Appeal under clause

'15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order

dated.1211212'.025 in W.P.No.25837 of 2024 on the file of the High Court.

Between:

P.Sadanandam, S/o. Rajaiah, Age 36 years, Occ Un-Employee, Fl/o.

Akkenapally Village, Nangnoor Mandal, Siddipet District.

...APPET.LANT/

RESPONDENT lN W.P.No.25837 OF 2024

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep- by its Prtncipal Secretary, Higher Education

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

2. The Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary,

Prathibha Bhavan, MJ Road, Narnpally, Hyderabad.

3. The ()ommissioner of lntermediate, Education, Hyderabad, State of

Telangana.

4. The Commissioner of Technical, Education, Hyderabad.

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

Ramnagar, Karimnagar - 505001, Telangana.

6. A. Sonia, D/o.

_Gangaram,

Ag_e_d about 24 years, R/o. H.No.7-83, Polasa

Village, Jagitial (M) and Jagitial District.

7. D.Konrlalreddy, S/o. D.Komalreddy, Aged about 31 years, R/o. H.No.1-83,

Desha ipalli, Veenavanka, Karimnagar.

8. Mohd. Sameera Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Mada Saheb, Aged about 26 years,

Rlo.H.ltlo.1 -7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpally -

so6168.

9. M.Nag,esh Kumar, S/o. Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, Fl/ o. B-1-1t4,

Mailan;ddypally, Flajendranagar, Ranga Reddy.

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.

5

1 1 . Maleka , Dlo. Mahabood, Aged about 27 years, Fl/o. H.No.1-3€AOO7, Banjara

Hills, thongir, Yadadri Bhongir District, Telangana - 508116.

12.B.Mamatha, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. lvlalyal (V), Echoda

(M), Adilabad District, Telangana - 504307.

(Respondents No.S to 12 not necessary parties)

...RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS

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.

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.

15.Raju Talari, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged 35 years, Occ. Unemployee, R/o. H.No.1-

.105, Bahirandibba, Alladurg Mandal, Nalgonda District.

l6.Alimoddin Mohammad, S/ o. Sulthan, Age 36 years, Occ . Unemployee, R/o.

H.No.7-214, Venugopala Swamy Township, Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda

District.

17. 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.

...RESPONDENTS/

PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.25837 OF 2024

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

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.

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

SRI RAMA RAO KILARU

_:_

Cognggl fort[re_Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4: SRIG.PRASANTH, AGP FOR

,' Counselfor the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC

:

Counselfor the Respondent Nos.13 Ms. B.RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR

COUNSEL FOR SRIMd. BASEER RIYAZ

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

i

I

i

1

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

t

6

WA NO: 191 OF 2026

:.

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal Preferred Against

the order Dated 12-12-2025 Passed in w.P.NO 25531 0f 2024 0n the file of the High

Court.

Between:

P.Sadanandam, S/o- Rajaiah, Age 36 years' Occ Un-Empleyee'

Akkenallally Village, Nangnoor Mandal, Siddipet District'

R/o.

...APPELLANT/

RESPONDENT No.12 lN WP.No-25531 OF 2024

AND

1. state of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education

Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad'

2. Teiangana State

public bervice Commission, Institutions Society TGSWREIS'

Rep. rjy its Secretary, Masab Tank, Hyderabad'

-

3. Comrnissioner of tntermediate Education, Govemment of Telangana'

Hyderabad.

4. Comrnissioner of Technical Education, Government of 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'

6. A. Sonia, D/o. Ganl$aram, Aged about 24 years, Fl/o' H'No'7-83' Polasa

Village, Jagitial (M) and Jagitial District

7. D.KJrrdatrJddy,'Sio. D.Komalreddy, Aged about 31 years, Rl/o. H-No-1-83'

Deshaipalli, Veenavanka, Karimnagar

g. Mohci. sameera Noorin; D/o. Mohd. Mada saheb, Aged about 2_6 years, Fi/o.

H.No.1-7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpatly (M), Jayashankar Bhupalpally -

5061t38

9. 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'

1g.K.Kir;an Xumar, Slo. Gopal, Aged abor:rt 40 years, R/o.H,No'1-3-12011,

Kisannagar, Bhongir (M), Yadadri Bhongiri District, Telangana - 508116-

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

Hills, Bhongir; -Yadadri 'Bhongir District, Telangana - 5081 16'

12.B.Mamathi, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, Rl/o. Malyal (V), Echoda

(M), r\dilab-ad District, Telangana - 504307-

(Reslcondents No.S to 12 not necessary parties)

...RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS

l3.Penc}em Narender, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Aged 33 years, BCB Occ Un-

empl.oyee, R/o. Jenipothulagudem, Chikur Mandal, Suryapet District-

7

l4.A.Vtlayachandra Reddy, S/o. Adi Reddy, Aged 31 years'Occ Un-employee,

R/o. H.No.7 1651, Mankammathota, Karimnagar, District.

15.T.Nagaraju, S/o. Srinivas, Aged 34 years, BCB, Occ

Navipet, Nizamabad District.

16.M.Chinneshwar, S/o. Bhumaiah, Aged 35 years, BCB, Occ Un-employee,

R/o.H.No.463111, Nagampet, Mupkal Mandal, Nizamabad District.

17.A.Sai Sujit Reddy, S/o. Sudhakar Reddy, Aged 34 years, EWS, Occ Un-

employee, R/ o. H. No.91 191 , Bhagatnagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

18-J.Aravind, S/o. Narayana, Aged 34 years, BCA, Occ Un-employee, R/o.

H.No.1 67, Vallabhapuram, Chivemia fVlandal, Suryapet District

...RESPONDENTS/

PETITIONERS lN W.P.No.25531 OF 2024

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition underSection 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.25531 of 2O24

dated 12.12.2024 pending disposal of the Writ Appeal-

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI M.SURENDER RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI RAMA RAO KILARU

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4: SRI G.PRASANTH, AGP FOR

SERVICES.I

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC

Counsel for the Respondent No's.l3 to 17 : Ms. B.RACHNA REDDY, SENIOR

COUNSEL FOR SRI Md. BASEER RIYAZ

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

WA.NO: 232 OF 2026

, 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.

R/o.

Between:

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

Ramnagar, Karimnagar-S05o01, Telangana

2. A. Sonia, D/o. Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, R/o. H.No.7-83, Polasa

Village, Jagitial (M) and District.

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

Deshaipalli,Veenavanka, Karimnagar

4- Mohd. Sameera Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Madar Saheb, Aged about 26 years, R/o.

H.No.1-7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalapally-

506168

8

5. M. N:rgesh Kumar, S/o.Nagappa, Aged about 35 years. Fl/o'B-1-1/4'

Mailareddypally, Rajendranagar' Rangareddy'

6. K. Kir.an-Kumar, Slo.Copai, Aged about 40 years, Fl/o'H'No'1-3-12011'

Kisanrragar, Bhongir (M), YadadriBhongiri District Telangana-sQ81

1 6'

-

7. Malek;r,b/o.Mrnalood, Aged about 27 years, Fyo- H.No'1-3-8A007, Banjara

Hills, Eihongir, Yadadri district, Telangana-sO81 16'

g. B. Marnathi, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Malyal (V)' Echoda

(M), Arlilabad District, Telangana-504307'

...APPELLANTS/

RESPONDENT Nos.S TO 11 & 13

AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary Higher Education

Department Secretariat Hyderabad

Z. fSFSr: Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary

Prathibha Bhavan M J Road Nampally Hyderabad

3. The Commissionerof Intermediate Education, Hyderabad State of Telangana

4. The Commissionerof Technical Education, Hyderabad'

...RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS

5. Moharnmad Karishma, D/o Mohammad C>ousuddin Aged 30 years Occ

Librarian Gurukulam School Social Welfare Girls School Suryapet Rl/o Pulusu

Guruva Reddy Reballe Village Thammavaram Post Chinthalapalem

Mandalam SuryaPet District

6. VidagrcniLaxmi liiran, S/o Sathaiah, Age 44 years, Occ:Unemployee, R/o

H.No. 7g51t\Gt3 Plot No 9 Phase ll, Road No.28, Sri Ramnagar Cotony Near

BSNL Office Pandagat Road Nalgonda District

7. Raju

-[alari.,

S/o Veeraiah, Age 35 Years, Occ:Unemployee, R/o H.No-l105

BahimndibbaAlladurg Mandal, Medak District.

8. Atimorldin Mohammad-, S/o Sulthan, Age 36 Years, Occ:Unemployee' Fi/o

H.No.7214 Venugopala Swamy Township Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

9. B Sutranya., D/o Jagar.rnadham Age 39 Years, Occ:Unemployee, R/o H.No.

53497'll Vidya Nagar Colony Kamareddy 5O3111

10.P Serdanandam, S/o Rajaiah, Aged about 35 years. R/o H.No.264

Akkenapally M Nangnoor, Siddipet Dstrict, Telangana 502280-

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

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITTONERS

l.A. N0: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section. 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

suspend the orders passed in W.P.No.25837 sf 2O24, Dated 12-12-2V25.

9

Counset for the Appellants: SRI G.VIDYASAGAR' SENIOR CQUNSEL FOR

SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l,3 & 4: SRI G.PRASANTH, Agp fOe

SERVICES-I

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR' SC FOR TGPSC

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.S TO 10: --

W.A.NO:251 0F 2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred Against Order

Oated 12t12t2125 in WP.No.24496 of 2024 on the file of the High Court'

Between:

AND

1. The State of Telan6i-ria, Reply its Principal Secretary' Technical Education

Department Secretariat Hyder:abad.

2. TSPSC Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep by its Secretary

PrathibhaBhavan M J Road Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of lntermediate Education, Hyderabad State of Telangana

4. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Hyderabad.

...RESPONDENTS/

RESPONDENTS

1. V.Anil Kumar, S/o. V. Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, R/o. H.No.9-6-345'

Ramnagar, Karimnagar-S05O01, Telangana

2. A. Sonia, D/o. Gangaram, Aged about 24 years, Rl/o- H.No.7-83, Polasa

Village, Jagitial (M) and District.

3. D. Kondalreddy, S/o. D. Komalreddy' Aged about 31 yeers' R/o. H.No 1-83'

Deshaipalli,Veenavanka, Karimnagar

4. Mohd. bameera Noorin, D/o. Mohd. Madar Saheb, Aged about 26 years, Rl/o'

H.No.1-7711, Gorlavedu (V), Bhupalpally (M), Jayashankar Bhupalapally-

506168

5. M, Nagesh Kumar, S/o.Nagappa, Aged about 35 years, Rl/o.8-1-1/4,

Mailareddypally, Rajendranagar, Rangareddy.

6. 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.

7. Maleka, D/o.Mahabood, Aged about 27 years, R/o. H.No.1-3-8A007, Banjara

Hills, Bhongir, Yadadri district, Telangana-5081 16.

8. B. Mamatha, D/o. Bapu Rao, Aged about 33 years, Ri/o. Malyal (V)' Echoda

(M), Adilabad District, Telangana-504307.

...APPELLANTS /

RESPONDENT Nos.5 TO 11 & 13

l0

5. Naseema Sultana, D/o MohdFakirahmed Aged 39 Years Occ:unemployee

Fl/o 21109/Al Afzal Nagar PeddapalleVandM Karimnagat 6O5172

6. Shaikl:shrathSulthana, Wo MdSaleem Pasha Aged 36 Years Occ Fi/o Flat no

104 AkhilaResidency Sriram Nagar Road No 3 Khammam urban Khammam

507001

7. Mohammad Zareena, Wo Mohammed lmam Aged 36 Years Occ No 14725

PandurrangapuramBallepalle V&M Khammam Urban Khammam Dist 507002

8. P Sadanandam, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally

M Narrgnoor Siddipet District TelanganaS02280

(Note. Respondent No. 8 is not necessary party to the present Writ Appeal)

...RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS

l.A. NO:1OF m26

Petitic,n under Seclion 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 orders passed in W.P.No.24496 of 2024,Daled 12-12-2025.

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI G.VIDYASAGAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR

SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM

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: -

WA NO: 258 OF 2026

Writ lrppeal under clause 1 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.

Between

Telangana State Public Service Commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha

Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

...P€TMONER/

APPELLANT

AHD

1. Pendem Narender, S/o Venkateshwarlu, Aged 33 years,

BC-B. Occ-

Unemployee, R:/o 2$9/1. Jenipothulagudem, Chikur Mandal,suryapet District.

As per C 0 dt 12112125 vide lA1/25 Dismissed as withdrawn

2. A.Viiiiyachandra Reddy, S/o Adi Reddy, Aged 31 Years, OccUnemployee, Rio

H.No7-1-651, Mankammathota, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

il

3. T.Nagaraju, S/o Srinivas, Aged 34 Years, BC-B- OccUnemployee,

R/oNavipet, Nizamabad District

4. 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

5. 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.

6. J.Aravind, S/o Naray ana, Aged 34 Years, BC-A, Occ Unemployee,

R/o. H. No 1 -67, Vallabhapuram,Chivemia Mandal,Suryapet District.

7. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education

Dept, Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad.

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

Flyderabad,

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

1O.V.Anil Kumar, S/o V Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, Rio H. No 96345

Ramnagar Karimnagar-S05oo1 Telangana.

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

Jagitial M and District.

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

Deshaipalli Veenavanka Karimnagar

13. Mohd Sameeralloorin, D/o Mohd MadarSaheb Aged about 26 years R/o H No

17711 Gorlavedu V Bhupalpally M Jayashankar Bhupalapal 1y506168

14.M.Nagesh Kumar, S/o Nagappa Aged about 35 years Rio 81114

Ma ilaredd ypallyRajendranagar Ranga redd y

15.K.Kiran Kumar, S/o Gopal Aged about 40 years R/o H No 1312011

Kisannagar Bhongir M YadadriBhongiri District TelanganasO81 16

16.Maleka, D/o Mahabood Aged about 27 years R/o H No 1384007 Banjara Hills

Bhongir Yadadri district Telanganas081 1 6

17. P.Sadanandam, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally

M Nangnoor Siddipet District Telangana502280

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

Adilabad District Telangana 50430

(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)

,,. 1;;,.i;,;ili; i

.:,.r,:i ',,:-j-ji,: :

...RESPONDENTS /RESPONDENTS

,ii: 1;: -',,'

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026

::'

.:I:.r:i. i

'' .;l'ri:" Dstition

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

..:..:,',.

: suspend the operation of the orders dated 1211212025 passed in WP No. 25531 of

2024, pending disposal of the writ appeal.

t.-:,.:.

t2

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

Counselfor the Respondent Nos'10 TO 18: -

Between:

WA NO: 259 OF 2026

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preffered Against the Order

Dated 12-12-.2025 in w.P.NC..25837 of 2024 on the file of the High court.

Telangana Public service commission, Rep. by its Secretary, Prathibha

Bhavan,M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

... PETITIONER/APPE LLANT

AND

1. Moharrrmad Karishma, D/o Mohammad Gousuddin Aged 3O years, Occ

Librarian Gunrkulam School, Social Welfare Girls School, Suryapet, Rl/o

pulusuGuruva Reddy, Reballe Village, Thammavaram Post, Chinthalapalem

Mand alam, SuryaPet District-

2. Vidagoni Laxmi Kirrn, S/o Sathaiah Age 44 years, Occ Unemployee R/o H.

ruo. 7-g-St tAGl3, Plot Nu 9, Phase ll, Road No 28, Sri Ramnagar Colony,

Near IBSNL Office, Pandagal Road, Nalgonda District'

3. Raiu

'falari,

S/o Veeraiah Age 35 Years, Occ Unemployee R/o H' No' 1-105'

Bahirtrndibba,Alladurg Mandal, Medak District'

4. Atimoddin Mohammad, s/o Sulthan Age 36 Years, Oco Unemployee R/o H.

No.7-21,4,Venr.rgopala Swamy Township. Chityala Mandal, Nalgonda District.

5. B Sukanya, D/o Jagannadham Age 39 Years, Occ Unemployee, R/o H- No- 5-

349711, Vidya NagarColony' Kamareddy -5O3111

6. The {itate of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education

Dept, Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad.

Z. Comrnissioner of lntermediate Education, Hyderabad, State of Telangana

A. tre Commissionerof Technical Education, Hyderabad

9. V.Anil Kumar, S/o V Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, R/o H. No 96345

Ramrtagar Karimnagar-So5O0 1 Telangana

10.A.Sopia, D/o Gangaram Aged about 24 years, R/o H No 783 Polasa Viltage

Jagiti;al M and District.

::11.D:Kondakeddy, S/o D Komalreddy Aged about 31 years R/o H No 183

Desh.aipalli Veenavanka Karimnagar

t2.Mohd Sameeftl Noorin, D/o Mohd MadarSaheb Aged about 26 years R/o H

No 17'7ll Gortavedu V Bhupalpally M Jayashankar Bhupalapally506168

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

Maila reddypally Rajendranagar Rangareddy

14.K.Kimn Kumar, S/o Gopal Aged about 40 years FUo H No 1312011

Kisannagar Bhongir M YadadriBhongiri District TelanganasO81 1 6

?' :l::'':;l

l.A. NO: 1OF 2026

, ,.

,:

,.

l3

1 5. Maleka, D/o Mahabood Aged about 27 years R/o H No 1384007 Banjara Hills

Bhongir Yadadri district Telanganas081 1 6

16. P.Sadanandam, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally

M Nangnoor Siddipet District TelanganaSO22SO

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

Adilabad District Telangana 50430

(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)

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

;

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 operation of the orders dated 1211212025 passed in WP.No.2ffi37 of

" t'-

2024, pending disposalof the writ appeal.

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

SERVICES.I

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

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.

Telangana Public Service commission, Rep. by its Secretary, prathibha

Bhavan, M.J.Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

.lr:-'.-

1 :, 'l-;

' j::

.:..

WA NO: 260 OF 2026

,\

Between:

.'.:!

-..:

...PETITIONER/APPE LLANT

AND

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

'1O9/A1,

Afzal Nagar, Peddapalle (V and M) Karimnagar SOS1T2

2. 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

t4

3. MoharnmedZareena, Wo Mohammed lmam, Aged about 36 years, Occ' R/o'

14-7-21j, Pandurangapuram, Ballepalle, (v and M), Khammam Urban'

Khamnram District- -507OO2

4. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary (technical Education)

Secret;r riat HYd erabad

S. The Oommissioner of Technical Education, Department of Technical

Education, HYder:abad, Telangana

6. commissioner of lntermediate Education, Hyderabad, state of Telangana

7. V.Anil Kumar, S/o V.Ravinder, Aged about 34 years, Fl/o H' No 96345

Ramnatgar Karimnagar-So5001 Telangana

g, A.SoniaI D/o Gangiram Aged about 24 years, R/o H No 783 Polasa Village

Jagitiatl M and District

9. D.koruJal Reddy, S/o D.Komalreddy Aged about 31 years R/o H No 183

Desha ipalli Veenavanka Karimnagar

10.Mohd :sameeralloorin. D/o Mohd MadarSaheb Aged about 26 years Fl/o H No

177t1 t3orlavedu V Bhupalpally M Jayashankar Bhupalapally506l68

11.M.Nagesh Kurnar, S/o Nagappa Aged about 35 years FUo 81114

Mailarcddypally Rajendranagar Rangareddy

12.k.Krarr

(r*"., S/o Gopal Aged about 40 years R/o H No 131201

. Kisanrragar Bhongir M YadadriBhongiri District Telangana508116

13.Malek:r,b/o tUanibood Aged about 27 years R/o H No 138A007 Banjara Hills

Bhongir Yadadri district TelanganasOSl 1 6

14.p.Sad;anandam, S/o Raiaiah Aged about 35 years R/o H No 264 Akkenapally

M Nanrgnoor Siddipet District Telangana502280

15.B.Marrratha, D/o bapu Rao Aged about 33 years R/o Malyal V Echoda M

Adilabad District Tetangana 50430

(As pe,r Court order dated. 1911212024 vide lA No. 3 of 2024 in WP No- 24496

of 2024, Respondents No. O7 to 15 are impleaded)

..RE SPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS

l.A. N9:1 OIF 2026

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 orders dated 12112t2O25 passed in WP.No.2449i6 of

2O24, pendinrg disposal of the writ appeal.

couhset for the Appellant: sRl P.S.RA,ASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC

CorinSel for ffre Respondent No.l: SRI'P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 TO 6: SRI G.PRASANTH, AGP FOR

. .

SERVICES.I

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

The Courd made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TEI.AIIGATIA

AT I{YDERABAI)

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF. JUSf,ICE SRI APARESH KI'MAR SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

lIl"RIT APPEAL Nos.l76. 185. 19O. 191. 232. 251. 258. 259

and 26Oof 2O26

DATE,:,1L.O4.2026

trI.A.No.176 of 2O26

Between:

V-Anil Kumar and 7 others

.Appellants

And

State of Telangana, rep. bY its

Principal Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Secretariat,

Hyderabad and 9 others

U/.A.No.185 of 2O26

Between:

P.Sadanandam

And

State of Telangana, rep. bY its

Principal Secretary, Technical

Education Department, Secretariat,

Hyderabad and 14 others

W.A.No.19O of 2O26

Between:

P.Sadanandam

And

State of Telangana, rep- bY its

Principat Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Secretariat,

Hyderabad and 16 others

Respondents

.Appellant

....Respondents

..Appellant

Respondents

2

W.A.Ilo- 191of 2o26

P.Sadanandam

And

State of Telangana, rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Higher

Education Department, Secretariat,

Hyder abad and 17 others

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

....Appellant

....Respondents

.Appellants

Respondeuts

.Appellaats

.Respondents

NFti 1o

Between:

V.Anil Kumar and 7 others

State of Telangana, rep. by its

Principal Secretary, Higher

EduceLtion Depa.rtment, Secretariat,

Hyderabad and 7 others

,

J

W.A.No.258 of 2O26

Between:

Telangana State Public Service

Commission, rep. by its Secretar5r,

Prathibha Bhavan, M.J.Road,

Nampally, Hyderabad.

.Appellant

And

Pendem Narender and 17 others

W.A.No.259 of 2026

Between:

....Respondents

Telangana State Public Service

Commission, rep. by its Secretary,

Prathibha Bhavan, M.J-Road,

Nampally, Hyderabad.

.Appellant

And

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.

....Appellant

And

Naseema Sultana and 14 others

....Respoadents

COMMON JUDGMENT

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;

4

2. 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+.

3. 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.

4. 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

5

respondent Nos.S to 9 in W.A.No- 176 of 2026 and respondent

Nos.2 to 6 in w.A.No.258 of 2026; Ms.B.Rachna Reddy, learned

Senior Counsel representing Sri Md.Baseer Riyaz, Iearned counsel

for respondent No.13 in W.A.No.I9O of 2026 and respondent

Nos.13 to L7 in W-A.No.191 of 2026; Sri P.Rama Sharana Sharma,

learned counsel for respondent No.13 in WjA.No.185 of 2026,

respondent No.S in W.A.No.25L of 2c26 and respondent No.l in

W.A.No.26O of 2026 and perused the record-

Factual matrix

5. The Telangana State Public Service Commission (hereinafter

referred to as 'TGPSC") issued Notification No.30/2O22 dated

31.12-2C/22 inviting apptications for recruitment to the post of

Librarian. The notification was issued pursuant to

requisitions/indent received from the State Government, notifying

a total of 7L vacancies, comprising 40 posts under the control of

the Cornrnissioner of Interrnediate Education and 31 posts under

tl-e control of the commissioner of Technical Education-

6. Clause 6 of the said notification prescribed the requisite

educationat quatifications. Insofar as the post of Librarian under

lntermediate Ed,ucation (Post code No.01) is concerned, the

candidates were required to possess , ittter alia, a Bachelor's Degree

in Arts, Science or Commerce, along with a Postgraduate Degree in

Library Science with not less than 5O7o marks- The said clause was

accompanied by a specifrc stipulation governing qualifications

/

6

obta:lned through distance education mode, which assumes central

relevance in the present lis and is extracted hereunder:

*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-"

7. 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

Telangana

7

a. [n order to veriff the validity and recognition of such degrees,

the TGPSC addressed a communication dated L7 -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 refejrence to tl.e A.P. State Reorganization

Act, 20L4, (for short, 'Reorganization ActJ the Universi$r

simultaneously disclosed the actual location of such study centres,

which were in fact, situated within the State of Telangana-

9. Meanwhite, the respondents (writ petitionersl in

W-P.No.25531 of 2024 submitted representations before the

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, rejecting the claim of the

respondents herein. The TGPSC recorded that the degrees

obtained by the respondents herein were through study c€ntres

located outside the territoriat jurisdiction of 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 purpose of recruitment, in view of

8

the University Grants .commission (uGC) public Notice dated

27.06.20 13, which formed part of the recruitment conditions-

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.

11. 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

9

respondents herein (writ petitioners) for appointment strictly on

merit, without reference to the rejection order dated 29.08.2024.

Submissiotls on behalf of the Appellants

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, advanced

elaborate submissions assailing the impugned common order

dated L2-L2.2O25 as under:

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

Telangana. I

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

/

/

n

t0

and regulatory regime, are ex facie invalid and cannot be

recognised for the purpose of public employment.

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.

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,

I

I

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

ll

it was specificalty held that degrees obtained through

distance education mode from Acharya Nagarjuna Universi$r

through study centres located in Telangana are 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.

v) That the UGC Pubtic Notice dated 27 -O6-2OL3 has 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 Public Notice was 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-

submissions on behalf of the respondents {writ petitionersf

13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents (writ

petitioners), supported the impugned cornmon order and

contended that the same does not warrant interference and

advanced ttre submissions as under:

I

I

t2

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.

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

\

l3

whether the study centres were located in Andhra Pradesh or

Telangana.

iii) The learned counsel drew attention to the communication

dated c,6.06.2024 issued by Achar5ra Nagarjuna universit5r,

wherein, in response to a query as to wtrether the study

centres were within its jurisdiction, the university answered

in the affirmative, referring to the provisions of tl.e

Reorganisation Act. It was contended that the University,

being the degree-granting authority, has recognised the

validit5r of the degrees in question, and the TGPSC cannot sit

in judgment over such determination'

iv) That the rejection order dated 29-08.2024 passed by the

TGPSC is vitiated by non-application o[ mind, inasmuch as it

merely reproduces the contents of the UGC Public Notice

. without duty considering the f,actual matrix and ttre

consistent practice of acceptance of such degrees by the

State and its instrumentalities. [t was argued that the said

order is mechanical, arbitrary and Liable to be set aside.

L4. We have taken note of the respective submissions urged and

the material placed on record-

Conslderation bY th'is Court

15. The foundational facts giving rise to the present case stand

adrnitted and are not in controversy, the respondents having

/2

l4

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:

THESC'{EDUT.E

l8cc..dqr 2 (tg) and at

uufrrEnstr=s ruo ner+r=inironnr-.n E anr.crrolar

sa-

No-

Nmo(tft€ UoavG.Eltt7 Arq H€<tquryt€c

U.iGty

(1, (2) (3) (.)

1 Atrltra &a mpdElog ttt€

Oastra€a ot

"[xt

'.[ r l- Vlia]rmao.rad

{t21.

\,lsa&rrapat.!ffi

"[.srJ

Arq ffiiprisiftg tft6

Oilsdcas o{:

a[rl-r,vsangat

:t1aul

2IEl

"t2l-Kframmqm

\,I€d<lrap*EE

2-

LrnlE6irtt/

l<.kat-ya

frnl€6ttt

Va.mgal

t7.

tE.

ra.

a.

t2l

2t

St{.-lkrrho.trdryE&.adre.

h I2l a tll .Et(rr6qd 6 It I a. I2t by u

wd Goddr, & EEt k omni.it oy s

_t<-a.rrEar .d Kham.M a agB 1r1i 14

byAgk2e otgOG_

AaaEdair by& No-a d ffi-

Garilhesmn€

*ek.A d 2@O.

NoAdm.

b.zad&.

rBgffid as lrl a

22-

l5

15b-dt-al IB

A.nolapw

4-

d.v-alra

Ua{Ersfty

-[Actrqnra

f{aga.runa

(,{*16 af:

l. Anarilc.}.r.

l- Guntua

a<-z.Nambrt

an Guct6

Ois.act

aIsxl

A.,u mpri.ang tt€

Ol*i6oa:

t n,@ittrl

5- O8.r14ia

Unt€Glty

2. Ral€.a6

"tx:1

Ar{ ffipd.ang af6

Dastrl* ol,:

r- Hydd-abad

2- RacgsFoddy

-t3. M€<t-&l

-[rxl

,,[x-,

-tr-l

t{}.d€rabad

a^d lt .tE!.

e{@d lo ao}a

plrc€ wttfrln a

qtigu@a

ar€a d M

mia€B around

it.

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.

16. 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:

Prtbllc Notlce

-on

@ur*s/Studa Cenfies/Off Campuses & Tenatorlal

Jttr{s,dlctlon o f Unlvetslt/.es

No. F.27-1/2012(CPP-il) 27 June,2ol3

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

programmes onducted bg ertain

priuate r'nstitufibns. These priuate establbhments daimilq

tluemselves as studg @ntres or learning @ntres of different

uniuersities enrol students for uarbus degree prcgrammes and al.s

daim to be resportsible for teaching and 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 education has led to widespred.

I

/

r*

t6

criticism. Tle Cornmrbsion has talcen a serious uiew of these

misleading aduertisements appeaing in uarious newspopers-

It is, tlwrefore, darified for tle infonnation of all concemed, including

students and parents tltat:

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;

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;

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-

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.

e) all uniuersities stwll award only suchdegrees as are specified

bg the UGC and publi.sted in the olficial garette.

J) the Uniuersifr.es shall onducl their frst degree and Master's

degree prcrgrammes in awrdane with th.e regulations nottfted

by the Gommission in this regard.

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 :

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

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 off-

cam4>us/study er$re.

B. a@ Rqulctlons oa Deemcd Utr,frrcrslties

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.

[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-

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.

l7

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.

The UGC lws rat granted approual to any deemed to be uniuersity to

establish study centres -

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-

C. Dtstance Educqtlon ptograrwncs oJ tte Cen*a.l Un&rlsldes

and ffate (buL anfircrs{t{es

The Central/State Caut. Uniuersities can qnducf ourses thtough

distane mode in amrdance with the prourbions of their respediue

Actand afierthe apprcualof tte UGC.

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-

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.

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.

18. 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

"/

/

(^)

l8

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.

19. 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:

l9

Secdoa 95. fiuorl opporfitnlti,es lor quollty htgher educqtTon

to o,ll studeats.

In order to ensure equal opportunities for

quality higher edttcation to

allsfudentsinthesueessorStafes,theexistingadmissbnquotosin

ollgouernm.entorpriu.ate,aidedorunaided,rnsfrtufionsofhigher'

teclnical and mediml education in * far as it is prouided under

articte 371D of the bnstitntion, shall ontinue as such for

a period of

ten years during which the exi.sting @mmon admission prcccss sha.ll

antinue-

20. tn Prof. Yashpal v. Stolte oJr Chhat'.;tsgolrh2, while

examining the validity of legistative measures relating to private

Universities, the Hon'bte supreme court emptrasized that 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 conferment of degrees

carries serious academic and societal consequences and, therefore,

cannot be dissociated from proper standards of education and

institutional credibitity. This principte was reiterated in

Kurrnancholl Insti/lrfie o! Degree & Diptoma a' Chancello6

M.JP. Rohilkhand tlnluersitgl, wherein the court held that

study centres, which partake the character of full-fledged academic

establishments, cannot be permitted to be established or operated

beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the parent university, as any

such extra-territorial frrnctioning would be contrar]r to the

statutory scheme governing the Universit5r'

r

lzoos; 5 scc 42o

'lzoozy 6 scc 35

/

I

20

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-

22- Further, the impugned common order of the learned singte

Judge does not advert to this foundational aspect of the matter-

The 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.

2t

23. [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-

24. [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.

25. The doctrine of 'Negative Equalit/ lays down that Article 14

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. Equalit5r before law cannot be extended

to compel repetition of a wrong

n

22

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

Ptu$aha, has categorically held as under:

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_

The said dictum unequivocally arfirms that the doctrine of

equality cannot be stretched to legitimise an otherwise unlawful

act.

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.

28. [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

o

1zoto1 I I scc 45s

'lzozol to scc 496

23

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 strictly in

accordance witl. the applicable rules and regulatory framework- It

cannot be compelled to perpetuate an illegality on the ground that

a similar illegatity may have been committed in the past.

29. 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 arose in

the context of a dispute relating to the perioa of validity of 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 validity of

/

61zoos1

ro scc 3 t4

C)

24

edu,:ational qualifications obtained in contravention of statutory or

regtrlatory norrns.

30. 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.

31. 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

25

n

\

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.

Conclusion

32. 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.

33. 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

I

\ I

t'

!

L

\

f

t,

:

i

I

To

.r 15

P.SK.

26

shall stand vacated. The TGPSC and the concerned appointing

authorities are at tibert5r to proceed with the process of recruitment

to the post of Librarian strictly in accordance with law.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall

stand closed. No costs.

SD/. K. SAILESHI

NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

OFFICER

1. The Prl. Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad,

State of Telangana.

2. The Secretary, Telangana State Public Service Commission, Prathibha

Bharran, MJ Road, Nampally, Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner of Technical Education, Department of Technical

Edur:ation, Hyderabad ; Telangana.

4. The Commissioner of lntermediate Education, Board of lntermediate,

Narrrpally, Hyderabad.

i

S. The Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat,

Hydr:rabad, State of Telangana.

6. The Secretary, Telangana State Public Service Commission, lnstitutions

Society TGSWREIS, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

7. One CC to SRI SAI PRASEN GUNDAVARAM, Advocate [OPUC]

8. One'CC to SRI RAMA RAO KILARU, Advocate [OPUC]

9. One CC to SRI M.V.RAMA RAO, Advocate IOPUCI

10.One CC to SRI Md. BASEER RIYAZ, Advocate TOPUCI

11.One CC to SRI P.V.L.BHANU PRAKASH, Advocate [OPUC]

12.One CC to SRI P.S.RAJASEKHAR, SC FOR TGPSC [OPUCI

13.One CC to SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA, Advocate [OPUC]

14.Tvrro CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at

Hyderabad. [OUT]

.Two CD Copies

a

HIGH COURT

DATEDT: 0210412026

COMMON JUDGMENT

190

l6

, 191 , 232, 251, 258, 259 ANDWA.Nos.l76, 185,

260 0F 2026

ALLOWING THE APPEALS

WITHOUT COSTS

THE

t

*

c

{.)

I0 APfl2026

tb