Teachers Shape Future Of Citizenry, Merit Can't Be Defeated By Lower Preference Exercised In Application Form: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has granted relief to several teachers whose marks made them eligible for the post of School Assistant (SA), but were allotted the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT), solely on the ground that they had exercised preference for the latter post in their online applications, holding that merit-cum-roster must be the governing criterion for recruitment and initial preference cannot override claim of more meritorious candidates for appointment to higher posts.Noting that teachers shape the future of citizenry, and any dilution in quality or selection of less meritorious candidates is not in the interest of the future society, Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed,"Ideally, the order of preference should be sought after the results so that the candidate is better informed. At the time of application, no individual can be sure of the marks and rank to be secured in the examination. An uninformed preference can never be a ground to restrain a candidate from making an informed preference. The binding nature of a provision on the candidate is only when the preference is conscious and on an informed basis, notwithstanding the language employed in the provision.”“Another way of examining this is that, fundamentally, public employment is also a contract, but is governed by Statutes and Rules, which are akin to covenants in a private employment agreement. In that context, offer and acceptance/rejection are the basic requirements for a person to be appointed or refused employment when selected. In these cases, there is no offer of appointment after being shortlisted for selection and the rejection of the Petitioners based on priority/preferences at the time of application has no foundation in any legally recognised principles” the Court added.BackgroundIn April 2025, the State Government issued a recruitment notification for posts including SAs and SGTs. Accordingly, petitioners applied for multiple posts and appeared in separate examinations. While they secured enough marks to be considered for post of SAs, they were appointed as SGTs as per preference order chosen during online applications.Challenging the same, petitioners contended that that their candidature should not be rejected only because they initially preferred SGT as preference. They argued that, being meritorious, they should be given a choice of choosing the posts and that there should be certainty in the selection process. They further contended that since separate tests were conducted for both posts with separate fees being paid for both, the selection process must also be independent.In contrast, the State argued that candidates were selected strictly in accordance with the priority option stipulated in the applications, and unless the AP Teacher Recruitment Rules, 2025 (“the 2025 Rules”) themselves are challenged or changed, the candidature of petitioners cannot be considered arbitrary. They further submitted that any relaxation in the preferences would disturb the entire selection process and affect the other candidates.The Court noted that Rule 3 of 2025 Rules stipulates that merit-cum-roster is the sole criteria for selections, while Rule 10 provides that applicants will be considered for appointment in order of preference opted by them. In light of these provisions, the Court observed,“If the order of preference in Rule 10 is considered absolute, the Rule 3 would effectively become a dead provision. Alternatively, Rule 3 does not specify anything about merit cum roster in the order of preference as was sought to be contended. In that sense, there is a conflict in both the Rules regarding the method of appointment and these Rules have to be reconciled.”The Court noted that the primary purpose of public notification for recruitment under different managements is to ensure transparency and to select the most meritorious candidates, and in light of the above-mentioned conflict between Rule 3 and 10, “the Rule that advances the very purpose of recruitment, i.e., merit, should be adopted and any contrary interpretation would be anti-merit and such an interpretation should be avoided. The Rule that is anti-merit should be read down.”In light of the said conflict, the Court further noted that though Rule 10 was not under direct challenge, “it is not fathomable as to what could be the rationale in introducing Rule 10 and why the preferences could not be altered in this computerised and networked world. All that was required for the Selection Committee was to prepare a tentative list of selectees and give a window for options to be exercised online and within a time frame. Apart from additional man-hours of work for the Selection Committee, such a procedure would have been fair and no hindrance to the selection process would have caused.”The Court thus read down Rule 10 only to the extent of preferences exercised at the application stage, subject to exercise of preference after being shortlisted for selection in other posts as per...

Teachers Shape Future Of Citizenry, Merit Can't Be Defeated By Lower Preference Exercised In Application Form: AP High Court

Saahas Arora

Tags