Common Order

1. The grievance of the petitioners in these two writ petitions is that they applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the 2nd respondent-P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University; and an essential condition to be met by the candidates is that they should possess knowledge of Telugu, however, the 2nd respondent, without preparing the merit list, selected the candidates belonging to Karnataka,having no demonstrable Telugu knowledge. The petitioners therefore assail the selection and appointment of 3rd respondents (in both the writ petitions) as illegal and arbitrary.

               1.1 In view of the commonality of grievance, the writ petitions are analogously heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order. For the sake of discussion, the averments in W.P.No.13507 of 2021 are taken.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit in W.P.No.13507 of 2021, are that the 2nd respondent-P.V. Narasimha Rao Telangana Veterinary University issued Advertisement dated 17.08.2020, notifying the post of Assistant Professor (Aquatic Environment Management) earmarked for the OC category. The prescribed qualifications required a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Fishery Science, with a minimum of 70% marks (or 65% for SC/ST candidates), a pass in the National Eligibility Test (NET), and listed knowledge of Telugu as "preferable." The petitioner, holding a B.F.Sc. with 69.2%, an M.F.Sc. with 73.13%, and NET qualification, and having studied 10th class in Telugu medium, and working as an Assistant Professor on contractual basis since 25.11.2017, submitted his application on 14.09.2020. He was subsequently called for an interview by a Call letter dated 08.04.2021, which he attended on 16.04.2021. However, the petitioner states that the selection committee without preparing a merit list, proceeded to directly issue the appointment order to the third respondent on 31.05.2021.

               2.1 The petitioner contends that the third respondent, a native of Somadevarahatti Village, Vijayapur Dist., Karnataka, does not know Telugu language, which is mandatory for working with local farmers and staff. It is also contended that the respondent University in a notification dated 17.03.2018 made passing a Telugu test, within three years, and such a condition was applicable only if no local candidates were available. The petitioner contends that the selection committee, influenced by Dean Dr. S.T. Viroji Rao—who is from Maharashtra and has ties to a Karnataka university—predetermined the outcome to favor a candidate from his region. It is also contended that the committee improperly awarded marks for a Ph.D. even though it was not a requisite qualification, thereby skewing the merit in favor of the third respondent. The petitioner contends that granting the third respondent a conditional appointment, requiring him to pass the Telugu language test conducted by the TSPSC within three years of joining, is an illegal relaxation when a fully qualified local candidate like himself was available. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to the respondent-University to appoint him by quashing the appointment of third respondent.

3. The 2nd Respondent-University filed counter affidavit contending that the entire recruitment process was conducted with transparency and in strict adherence to the regulations. It is contended that the selection was a merit-based, nation-wide competition as mandated by law.It is contended that in response to the Notification dated 17.08.2020, for one post of Assistant Professor in Aquatic Environment Management under the Open Category (OC), 12 applications were received, of which 3 were rejected for failing to meet eligibility criteria, leaving 9 eligible candidates. The entire process was governed by G.O.Ms.No.15, Higher Education Department, dated 29.06.2019. As per this G.O., no written test was required; instead, candidates were assessed on a 100-point scale – 80 marks for academic performance (based on a self-assessment score card per Table 3A of the G.O., evaluating graduation, post-graduation, Ph.D., NET, research publications, and teaching experience) and 20 marks for the interview (10 for oral interview and 10 for teaching skills). Interviews for all 9 shortlisted candidates were conducted by a duly constituted Selection Committee on April 16 and 17, 2021. The Committee's recommendations were then placed before and approved by the Board of Management at its meeting on May 7,2021, culminating in the issuance of the formal appointment order Proceedings dated 31.05.2021.

               3.1 The 2nd respondent-University cites G.O.Ms.No.15 and G.O.Ms.No.420 (dated 18.11.1995), clarifying that while posts reserved for SC/ST/BC categories are filled from only Telangana State candidates, the Open Category posts are filled through an all-India competition with no reservation for locals. It refutes the claim of a hidden or non-transparent merit list by explaining that a panel was indeed prepared, ranking the 3rd Respondent first and the petitioner second, and that university regulations require a panel with 50% more candidates than posts. Crucially, the University directly counters the petitioner's central allegation regarding the 3rd Respondent's Telugu proficiency. It states that during the interview, the Selection Committee tested his knowledge by asking questions in Telugu, and he demonstrated his ability by reading Telugu printed material and answering in the language, thereby satisfying the "preferable" criterion. Despite this, as a precaution, his appointment order contained a condition to pass the Telugu language test conducted by the TSPSC within three years.

               3.2 Furthermore, the University contends that the contractual engagements of the petitioner were not continuous – from 25.11.2017, to 23.03.2018, and subsequently in spells of 175 days each commencing on 01.10.2018, 01.04.2019, 01.10.2019, 01.04.2020, 01.10.2020, and 01.04.2021. The University emphasizes that the petitioner executed a bond acknowledging his contractual role conferred no right to regularization or preference in future selections. It is also contended that the petitioner allegations are baseless and defamatory, specifically denying that Dr. S.T. Viroji Rao is from Maharashtra, asserting he was born and educated in Telangana, and stating that the Registrar's nativity is irrelevant as the selection strictly followed the statutory G.O.Ms.No.15. It is also contended that the 3rd Respondent possesses a Ph.D., scored 88.14 marks, while the petitioner, without a Ph.D., scored only 60.60 marks; and the petitioner, having applied under the Open Category and participated fully without initially challenging the process, is now estopped from doing so after failing to secure the post on merit.

4. The third respondent, Sri Muttappa Khavi, filed counter affidavit contending that the selection process conducted by the respondent-University was transparent, and strictly followed government regulations. It is contended that the notification was issued for a total of 17 posts, of which 10 were reserved for various categories, and the notification explicitly stated that knowledge of Telugu was "preferable but not compulsory," and for the post of Assistant Professor, NET was compulsory but relaxable for candidates possessing a Ph.D. as per UGC rules. All applicants, including the petitioner and the respondent, were required to submit a self-assessment score card based on the criteria in Table 3A of G.O.Ms.No.15, which allocated marks for academic performance, research publications, and teaching experience. A selection committee was properly constituted as per the guidelines in Rule 2.1.1 of the same G.O., and this committee shortlisted 9 candidates for interviews held on 16.04.2021 and 17.04.2021. The committee's recommendations were approved by the Board of Management on 07.05.2021, leading to the issuance of the final appointment order Proceedings dated 31.05.2021, with the respondent reporting for duty on 03.06.2021.

               4.1 It is contended that the petitioner scored 60.60 marks in the self-assessment, he himself scored 88.14 marks, a lead of 27.54 marks, due to his higher qualifications, including a Ph.D. which earned him 30 marks. He refutes the allegation concerning local candidate status by citing G.O.Ms.No.420 from 18.11.1995, which mandates a faculty-wise roster. It is contended that while reserved posts are for Telangana candidates, the 7 open-category posts, including the one for AEM, were filled on an all-India basis with no reservation for locals. With regard to the Telugu language proficiency, it is contended that the it is only a "preferable" qualification. Furthermore, he asserts that the selection committee conducted a test of his Telugu proficiency during the interview, which he passed, and that his prior work interacting with Telugu-speaking farmers in coastal Andhra Pradesh had allowed him to acquire the language. He also categorically denies the allegation of bias by Dean Dr.S.T.Viroji Rao, stating that the Dean is a native of Telangana who obtained all his degrees from institutions in Hyderabad and that neither he nor the Registrar had any undue influence on the selection committee's merit-based decision.Finally, the respondent contends that the petitioner's claim of four years of continuous service is misleading, and that the petitioner's contractual engagements were non-continuous and in different spells of 175 days from 01.10.2018, to 01.04.2019, among other non-consecutive periods. He contends that the petitioner despite belonging to the ST category, now illegitimately seeking to claim reservation benefits after failing on merit, and that the petitioner, having accepted the rules by applying and participating in selection process, cannot now challenge the selection of third respondent. He filed an additional counter affidavit in almost similar lines of his counter affidavit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the appointment of the third respondent is illegal and void ab initio. He argued that the university's own advertisement dated 17.08.2020 prescribed "Knowledge of Telugu language" as a mandatory qualification, which the third respondent admittedly did not possess at the time of selection, as evidenced by the conditional appointment requiring him to pass the Telugu test subsequently. He emphasized that this constitutes a substantive illegality, as an appointing authority cannot relax essential qualifications post-selection, by imposing a post-appointment condition to suit a particular candidate. It was further contended that the entire selection process was opaque, with the respondents admitting that the merit list was not published, thereby violating the principles of transparency in public employment. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioner, a local ST candidate with full qualifications including NET and Telugu proficiency, was unjustly ignored in favor of the 3rd respondent.

6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent University vehemently defended the appointment, contending that the selection process was conducted with utmost transparency and in strict compliance with G.O.Ms.No.15. He contended that knowledge of Telugu was listed as "preferable" and not mandatory in the advertisement, and that the selection committee was fully satisfied with the third respondent's proficiency in Telugu during the interview. He emphasised that the third respondent's appointment was based solely on his superior academic merit, having scored 88.14 marks against the petitioner's 60.60 marks. Learnedcounsel also submitted that the third respondent has since regularized his position by successfully passing the Telugu language test as required, rendering the petition infructuous. It was further argued that the petitioner, having voluntarily participated in the selection process without protest, is estopped from challenging it after failing to secure the post on merit.

7. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the core dispute revolves around the legality of the appointment of the third respondent to the post of Assistant Professor in Aquatic Environment Management, by a conditional appointment order dated 31.05.2021 requiring the 3rdrespondent to pass Telugu language test.

               7.1 The university’s notification dated 17.08.2020for the post of “Assistant Professor / Equivalent Cadres in the faculty of Fishery science” explicitly stipulated "Knowledge of Telugu language is preferable". The term “preferable” (as per Cambridge English Dictionary)means“better or more suitable”; and therefore the candidates having knowledge of Telugu language are more suitable for appointment. However, in the counter affidavit, the Registrar of the 2nd respondent-Universitymakes a contradictory contention stating that “though the Selection Committee has fully convinced with his knowledge in Telugu language, the University has put a condition while appointing the 3rd respondent that he should pass Telugu Language test to be conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission within 3 years from the date of joining the post, failing which his probation shall not be declared, since the 3rd respondent is not having any records pertaining to working knowledge of Telugu language”.

               7.2 It is to be noted that the qualification with regard to Telugu knowledge notified in the advertisement, and the contention in the counter affidavit, as well as the conditional appointment are contradictory, because when the Selection Committee has examined/interviewed the 3rd respondent and was fully convinced about his working knowledge, and if really Telugu knowledge was only “preferable” and “not essential”, it is not known why the Selection Committee required records of 3rd respondent with regard to his Telugu knowledge proficiency are required, and why such a condition was necessitated in the appointment order mandating the 3rd respondent to pass a Telugu language test within 3 years, and cautioning him that his probation would not be declared if he doesn’t pass Telugu test.

               7.3 Therefore, the conditional appointment requiring the 3rd respondent to"pass the Telugu language test conducted by the Telangana State Public Service Commission within 3 years from the date of joining the post, failing which his probation shall not be declared", imparts a “mandatorycharacter” to the Telugu qualificationprescribed for the position of Assistant Professor, and it is not a mere “non-essential”, “desirable”, or “good to have” qualification as is sought to be canvassed in the counter affidavit.

                7.4 At this juncture, it is not out of place, and in fact, relevant to refer to the material papers at page No.48 of the writ petition, relating to an earlier Notification dated 17.03.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent University, which amply throws light on the aspect of why the Telugu knowledge was preferred for Assistant Professor posts. In the said Notification dated 17.03.2018, the requirement of Telugu knowledge for Assistant Professors is elaborated by stating that “Telugu language is preferable for the posts of Assistant Professors, and where candidates from Telangana or candidates with Telugu knowledge are not available, the candidates without Telugu knowledge will be considered for posts in Open Category and that such candidates shall pass Telugu language test conducted by TSPSC within three years failing which the probation of such candidates would not be declared”.

               7.5 At this juncture, it is to be noted that such elaboration of the necessity of Telugu language for the Assistant Professor position in the present Notification dated 17.08.2020 is conspicuously omitted; however, it is also to be equally noted that the present notification does not specify that other candidates from Open Category would be considered when Telangana candidates or candidates with Telugu are not available, and such Open Category candidates shall pass Telugu language test conducted by TSPSC within the prescribed time.

               7.6 The respondents' attempt to distinguish notifications from other universities, such as the Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University, is unpersuasive. The scoring of 88.14 marks for the third respondent, which includes credit for qualifications like a Ph.D., is not material when the candidate does not possess any demonstrable knowledge of Telugu language, supported by documentary evidence, and when the respondent authorities are of the opinion that Telugu is not essential, there is no plausible reason for incorporating a condition in the appointment order, requiring the 3rd respondent to pass a Telugu language test to prove his Telugu language proficiency, and there is not even any need for recording that the third respondent does not have any record in proof of his Telugu language proficiency, as if Telugu language is mandatory for the position. Further, the notification does not envisage any sort of conditional appointment.

               7.7 The reliance placed by the respondent-University and the third respondent on G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 29.06.2019, to justify an "all-India" selection and the scoring system is misplaced. The fundamental legal principle governing public employment is that eligibility criteria notified cannot be relaxed arbitrarily to favor a particular candidate.

               7.8 Admittedly, there is no such stipulation in the present Notification dated 17.03.2020 that a conditional appointment would be made to the post of Assistant Professor if candidates from Telangana or Telugu knowing candidates are not available. It cannot be said that the knowledge of Telugu was relevant only for the Notification dated 17.03.2018. Further, it is not disputed that the petitioners are from Telangana region and they participated in the selection process and it is not the case of the respondent authorities that the petitioners do not have required merit for selection and appointment.

               7.9 Furthermore, a perusal of both the present Notification 17.08.2020 and also the earlier Notification dated 17.03.2018 would show that such stipulation of “knowledge of Telugu language” is only specified for Assistant Professor position, and not for Associate Professor or Professor position(while preferring the candidates from Telangana or Telugu knowing persons), apparently considering that the functions and duties discharged by an Assistant Professor, being an entry level officer in the Department, requires interaction with local fishermen and fish-farming community having knowledge of Telugu language, thereby performing ground-level work and interaction in the organisation; and it is only in the event of non-availability of such Telugu knowing candidates for Assistant Professor, the other candidates who does not know Telugu may be appointed subject to their passing Telugu within a prescribed period, which is an alternative measure. The 2nd respondent being a university for advancement of education and research, and being a recruiter to the post of Assistant Professor, cannot undermine the intent behind such criteria, and cannot bypass such condition, and cannot subsequently issue a conditional appointment order in favour of third respondent, which mechanism was not stipulated under the present notification dated 17.08.2020.

8. The petitioner, a local ST candidate with NET qualification and demonstrable Telugu proficiency, who has been working in a contractual capacity as Assistant Professor since 25.11.2017, cannot be said to be not preferable for appointment, while offering conditional appointment to the third respondent, which is not contemplated in the Notification dated 17.08.2020.In that view of the matter, this Court finds force in the contentions of the petitioner with regard to the arbitrary action of the 2nd respondent, and therefore this is a fit case to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

               8.1 That being said, though it is alleged that the third respondent’s selection was unduly influenced, the said allegation is not supported by reliable material evidence. The third respondent was appointed in 2021, and he passed Telugu test in 2023, and it is four years now that he is said to be performing the duties of Assistant Professor. Therefore, while granting relief to the writ petitioners, this Court, considering solely humanitarian grounds,is not inclined to take a detrimental view against third respondent. However, as the 2nd respondenthas traversed beyond the terms of the Notification dated 17.08.2020 by making a conditional appointment, not envisaged nor explicitly stipulated under the notification, this Court directs the 2nd respondent-University to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Professors/equivalent cadre in the 2nd respondent-University, as per law.

9. Accordingly, both the writ petitionsare allowed, with a direction to the 2nd respondent-University to appoint the petitioners (Mr. BanothuRaveendar, and Mr. Ravi Gugulothu) as Assistant Professors (or in equivalent cadre) within a period of four weeks from today, with notional seniority from the same date as that of third respondent. The petitioners shall undergo the probationary period as per regulations, and shall not claim retrospective monetary benefits on account of this order; and the benefits whatsoever shall only be notional until the date of this order. The appointment of third respondents (Mr. Muttappa Khavi, and Mr. T.N. Devanand) shall continue. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.