Telangana High Court: The present writ petition was filed seeking to declare the action of Respondent 1, Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board in not conducting examination dated 1-8-2023 in Telugu language for the post of Art Teacher in Residential Educational Institutions Societies, as illegal and arbitrary. Pulla Karthik, J., allowed the writ petition and directed respondents to conduct fresh written examination for the post of Art Teacher in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in Notification No. 6/2023, dated 5-4-2023, without any deviation.
Petitioner submitted that Respondent 1 had issued Notification No. 6/2023 dated 5-4-2023 inviting applications from eligible candidates, pursuant to which, petitioner applied for the post of Art Teacher, and appeared for the examination conducted through online mode on 1-8-2023. It was submitted that though in the Notification it was mentioned that the question paper was bilingual i.e., in English and Telugu, but the paper did not contain the questions in Telugu language and only contained in English, due to which, petitioner could not write the exam properly. Therefore, not conducting examination in Telugu language was violative of Schedule VIII of the Constitution, which recognized Telugu as one of the languages and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution as by providing the question paper only in English language, respondents discriminated against the candidates knowing Telugu.
Respondents submitted that all the Residential Institutions working under the five Residential Societies were English Medium Institutions and run with an objective to maintain the vocabulary and coaching patter, and the teachers had to teach in English only to compete with that of the students studying in private and corporate English Medium schools. Therefore, the question paper was prepared in English medium only.
The Court noted that the Notification No. 6/2023 dated 5-4-2023, issued by Respondent 1 inviting applications for the post of Art Teacher wherein it was categorically mentioned at Para (1)(v) that the question paper was bilingual i.e., English and Telugu. Therefore, the Court opined that the action of Respondent 1 in conducting the examination only in English medium was contrary to their own notification.
The Court relied on K. Manjusree v. State of A.P., (2008) 3 SCC 512 and held that the action of Respondent 1 in conducting examination in single language, i.e., in English, despite mentioning as bilingual in the notification, could not be sustained and therefore, was liable to be set aside.
The Court allowed the writ petition and directed respondents to conduct fresh written examination for the post of Art Teacher in two languages i.e., English and Telugu, as specified in Notification No. 6/2023, dated 5-4-2023, without any deviation.
[G. Vinod v. Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Recruitment Board, 2024 SCC OnLine TS 544, Order dated 4-4-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Bhaglekar Akash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Nayakwadi Ramesh, SC
Buy Constitution of India HERE
