IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

C.C.NO 1417 OF 2019

In

W.P. NO. 25555 OF 2018

Between:

Kondagorla Sanjeeva Rao, S/o.K.Sammaiah,

R/o.14-33, Uppedu Veerapuram, Venkatapuram Mandal,

Uppedu Veerapuram (Z), Khammam District - 507133,

Telangana State . ..Petitioner

AND

Dr.R.S.Praveen Kumar, I.P.S,

Chairman Telangana Residential Educational Institutions

Recruitment Board ,, 4th Floor, DSS Bhavan,

Opposite of Chacha Nehru Park, Masabtank, Hyderabad. . . .Respondent

REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PEEETITIONER

I, Kondagorla Sanjeeva Rao, S/o.K.Sammaiah, R/o.14-33, Uppedu Veerapuram,

Venkatapuram Mandal,Uppedu Veerapuram (Z), Khammam District - 507133,

Telangana State , now having temporarily come down to Hyderabad, do hereby

solemnly and sincerely affirm and state as follows :

1. I submit that I am the petitioner in the Contempt case and petitioner the

W.P.No.25555 of 2018 as such I am well acquainted with the facts of the case and I

have gone through the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent and it

needs to give my reply.

2. I submit that 1 and 2 paras are in general and so those are not required to give

reply.

3. I submit that the contents para 3 of the counter affidavit based on the record

and so partly this petitioner has accepted but denied to say that the Respondent
followed TSPSC in issuing Notification for recruitment of Teachers, and so the

Respondent has committed a grave error in not following the existing Norms and

Regulations of NCTE.

In fact the Respondent has to be followed the amended Norms and Regulations

of 2014 NCTE Norms but not the TSPSC because by the Central Act ,2009 The NCTE

was established as “Academic Authority” all teacher recruiting authorities under

Central Governments, State Governments and all other autonumous bodies must follow

the minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE Norms & Regulations as amended

from time to time for a person to be appointed as a Teacher and thereby they have

to amend the service rules as per the amended NCTE Norms and Regulations for time

being.

Must possess a Bachelor’s Degree with Mathematics /

Applied Mathematics/ Statistics as the main Subject ( Or ) one of

TGT
the three equal optional subjects from a University recognized by
Mathematics
UGC

AND

B.Ed with Mathematics as a Methodology subject from a

Institution recognized by NCTE.

I submit that even as per the above mentioned table the minimum qualifications

required for the post TGT Mathematics all the B.Tech /B.E who has pursued B.Ed shall

be treated as eligible because we have studied all the three equal optional subjects as

mentioned in the Notification issued by the Respondent. It is evidently proved that the

Respondent violated it’s own it’s service rules.

4. I submit that in reply to para 4 of the Counter Affidavit it is not true to say that

they have called the applicants in the 1:2 ratio for the final selection and finally the

results were declared and final selection lists furnished purely on the basis of merit to

the respective Societies for their appointments and postings and the candidates also

joined in their respective places of (5 ) Residential Societies.

In fact the Respondent has by withholding the total (5) B.Tech B.Ed candidates

result who have stood in the merit published the Provisional selection list on 02-05-2019

at that stage we have filed 1). W.P.No.10204 of 2019, 2).W.P.NO.11495 of 2019

3).W.P.NO.13944 OF 2019 and 4). W.P.16120 of 2019 challenged the inaction of the

Respondent in considering the B.Tech B.Ed not eligible on par with B.Sc(Maths) B.Ed

candidates for the post of TGT ( Mathematics ) .

The Respondent declared the final result by disobeying the interim orders passed

by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.10204 of 2019, dated 08-05-2019 filed by Danusari

Kavitha and myself , which amounts to contempt of Courts.

Order :

Post along with W.P.No.25555 of 2018.

“Any appointment made will be subject the result of this Writ Petition” .

5. I submit that in reply to para 5 of the Counter affidavit stating that the candidates

having B.Tech with B.Ed qualifications, including the present Petitioner in this

C.C.No.1417 of 2019 in W.P.No.25555 of 2018 have not been selected for the of

Trained Graduate Teacher in Mathematics since B.Tech. with B.Ed is not the

requisite qualification as the Notification No.01/2018 of this Respondent Board ,

Further as per the common service rules of Societies and as per the above Notification

No.01/2018, the Petitioner has not studied Mathematics atleast 33.33% of entire

syllabus at Graduation level but B.Tech candidates have not studied 33.33%

Mathematics at Graduation.
 In fact this analogy adopted by the Respondent is wrong because even as per the

requisite qualifications mentioned in the above said table the Petitioner as well as all

B.Tech with B.Ed graduates have acquired the minimum basic qualification a bachelor’s

Degree with Mathematics / Applied Mathematics/ Statistics as the main Subject ( Or )

one of the three equal optional subjects from a University recognized by UGC, so as the

Respondent would have been treated Petitioner’s qualification is equivalent on par

with B.Sc Mathematics with B.Ed graduates for the post of TGT ( Mathematic ). The

theory adopted by the Respondent that the Petitioners have not studied 33.33% at

Graduation is a new invention and the Respondent did not follow by the existing

2014 Norms & Regulations of the NCTE.

6. I submit that in reply to para 6 of the counter affidavit filed the respondent it is

not true and correct to state that the Respondent has filed detailed counter affidavits in

1).W.P.No.10204 of 2019,2). W.P.No.11495 of 2019, 3).W.P.No. 13944 of 2019 and

4).W.P.No.16120 of 2019 .

In fact the Respondent has not filed any counters in all the said Writ Petitions but

at the time of final hearing the Officer of the Respondent Board had admitted in the

open Court that they have followed the 2010 Norms and Regulations of the NCTE . But

only in W.P.No.25555 of 2018 the respondent has filed Counter.

7. I submit that para 7 contents mentioned in Counter is correct to state that after

considering the petition averments and counter filed by the Respondent

inW.P.No.25555 of 2018 this Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the W.P.No.25555 of

2018 and batch matter with common orders dated 21-06-2019.

I further submit that the operative portion of the orders of this Hon’ble Court needs

no reply of this Petitioner.

8. I submit that in reply to para 8 of the counter it is unreliable to state that the

Respondent Board in the view of the Common orders had requested the Secretaries of
(% ) Residential Educational Institutions Societies to furnish their considered opinions

on the above said final common orders dated 21-06-2019 of the Hon’ble High Court

whether to appeal or to implement the above said orders for considering the

Petitioner’s B.tech.B.Ed qualification as directed by this Hon’ble Court .

In fact the Respondent Board has to implement the this Hon’ble Court Orders to

prefer appeal but the Respondent has simply preferred the Writ Appeals to avoid the

comply the orders and kept quite without obtaining any interim suspension of orders of

this Hon’ble Court even after 1 ½ years lapsed.

9. I submit that in reply to para 9 of the counter it is not correct to say that the

Societies informed that Petitioners who filed the Writ Petitions are possess

B.Tech Degree with different branches (i.e.) EEE, Mechanical, Chemical etc as

the main subject but “ not mathematics as main subject. Therefore , it is

perceived that the petitioners are not having the basic qualifications in

graduation level as specified in the said notification. There are no such

governing rules to treat B.Tech. as equivalent qualifications for the posts of

TGT ( Maths). Hence, the qualifications prescribed in the said notification

holds good”.

In fact the NCTE gave a clarification dated 09-05-2019 and 10-05-2019 to the

Petitioner on his RTI application after filing the Writ Petition so it has been filed in

W.P.No11495 of 2019 as all the Writ petitions are involved similar subject matter , and

the Petitioner also submitted a copy of the same to the Respondent’s office and

requested to consider the Petitioners as equally qualified for the post of TGT ( Maths )

on par with B.Sc.(Maths) graduates.

10. In reply to para 10 of the Counter affidavit that the petitioner has already stated

the same thing in the Writ Affidavit very clearly that the TSPSC also not considered the

B.Tech. B.Ed for the post of TGT ( Maths ) in notification No.14/2017, dated 14-04-

2017 without following the NCTE Norms & Regulations of 2014.

11. In reply to para 11 of counter affidavit it is not correct to state that the

Government of Telangan has approved the common qualifications for the posts in all

the ( 5 ) Residential Societies, in the said government approved qualifications, the

B.Tech. Degree is not the requisite qualification for the post of TGT Mathematics.

In fact if the Respondent has followed existing Norms and Regulations they

may include B.Tech B.Ed in their service rules as well as TSPSC also. The NCTE has

directed in its clarification to the Government of Telangana and Schhol Education

Department to take appropriate steps . The Respondent has violated the Rules of NCTE

which were published in the Gazette of India Notification 2014 , if it followed the

amended rules and regulations of NCTE the Respondent could have been inserted the

qualification of B.Tech B.Ed in its Notification.

12. I submit that for para 12 of the counter need not to give any reply it has

already replied in the above paras.

13. I submit that pertaining to paras 13 and 14 of the counter need not give any

reply because it is admitted fact.

14. I submit that pertaining to para 15 of the counter also need not give any reply

because it is replica of Para 5.

15. I submit that in reply to para 16 of the counter it is not true and correct to

state that the petitioners have not studied Mathematics as one of the 3 equal subjects

as prescribed in common qualifications. But, the Petitioner with B.Tech Degree of 4

years period, he only learnt 2 subjects of Mathematics out of 12 subjects in first year

and one mathematics subject in 2 nd year out of 16 subjects and nil in total 16 subjects

in the 3rd year and nil in all 15 subjects in 4 th year. All together only three subjects

( Papers) of Mathematics studied out of total 59 subjects in the 4 year B.Tech

Engineering Degree by the Petitioner that means even 5% of subjects of Mathematics

are not covered in the syllabus of 4 years of Engineering Degree. Hence the petitioner
is not eligible for the post of TGT Mathematics as per the common qualifications and

guidelines of the Notification No.01/ 2018 issued by this Respondent.

In fact in B.Tech for all the 4 years they learnt Mathematics, Applied

mathematics and Statistics apart from the main subject , so as per the Respondent’s

Notification minimus qualification mentioned in tabular form of para 3 of their Counter

Admittedly the petitioners are qualified for the post of TGT ( Maths ) but ignoring their

own common service rules throwing on the TSPSC stating that they followed TSPSC

which is crystal clear principle of promissory estoppels on the part of the Respondent

for not considering their own service rules in proper prospective.

16. I humbly submit that I came to know that one Satish Chandra has obtained

information dated 04-07-2020 through RTI from the Respondent pertaining to the

unfilled (5) posts of TGT ( Maths ) by the Respondent Board and the Respondent has

clearly stated that the vacant (5 ) will be filled subject to the out come of Writ Petitions

filed by the B.Tech B.Ed candidates. In CC.No.1404 of 2019 we have filed the copy of

the RTI Information on 03-09-2020 . So the Respondent has to comply with the

orders of this Hon’ble Court without any further delay by considering the B.Tech B.Ed

qualification is fully eligible for the post of TGT ( Maths ) on par with B.Sc Mathematics

with B.Ed candidates .

For the reasons stated above , it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be

punished the Respondent for wilful disobedience in compliance of this Hon’ble Court

orders passed in W.P.No.25555 of 2019 by allowing the Contempt case No.1417 of

2019 in accordance with law, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court

may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Solemnly and sincerely affirm and sworn Deponent.

On this the day of 24th day of February, 2021,

At Hyderabad .
 Advocate /Hyderabad.

VERIFICATION

I, Kondagorla Sanjeeva Rao, S/o.K.Sammaiah, R/o.14-33, Uppedu Veerapuram,

Venkatapuram Mandal,Uppedu Veerapuram (Z), Khammam District - 507133,

Telangana State do hereby declare that the contents in paras 1 to 16 on reply affidavit

true and correct to best of my knowledge and belife and as per the record, hence

verified on this the day of 24th February ,2021 , at Hyderabad.

24-02-2021.

Hyderabad. Petitioner

Counsel For the Petitioner