Telangana High Court
Telangana Public Service Commission vs Yenagandula Mahender on 9 April, 2026
*THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
*THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
+ WRIT APPEAL Nos.337, 338, 341 and 342 of 2026
%09.04.2026
Between
# Telangana Public Service
Commission, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad.
...Appellant
vs.
$ Yenagandula Mahender and 2
others.
...Respondents
!Counsel for the appellant
:Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing
Counsel for Telangana Public Service
Commission for appellant in
W.A.Nos.337, 338, 341 and 342 of 2026
^Counsel for respondents : Sri M.V.Rama Rao, learned counsel
for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.337
of 2026.
: Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior
Counsel representing Sri Srinivasa
Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 in W.A.Nos.338,
341 and 342 of 2026.
: Sri S.Suman, learned Government
Pleader for Services-III appears for
respondent No.2 in W.A.No.338 of
2026.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. (2009) 5 SCC 65
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL Nos.337, 338, 341 and 342 of 2026
DATE: 09.04.2026
W.A.No.337 of 2026
Between:
Telangana Public Service
Commission, rep. by its Principal
Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad
....Appellant
And
Yenagandula Mahender and
2 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.338 of 2026
Between:
Telangana Public Service Commission,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Nampally, Hyderabad
....Appellant
And
Kachu Rajitha and 2 others
....Respondents
W.A.No.341 of 2026
Between:
Telangana Public Service Commission,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Nampally, Hyderabad
....Appellant
And
Cherukuri Sunitha and another
....Respondents
3
W.A.No.342 of 2026
Between:
Telangana Public Service Commission,
rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Nampally, Hyderabad
....Appellant
And
Anoosha Sepuri and another
....Respondents
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.M.Mohiuddin)
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.
2. W.A.No.337 of 2026 is directed against W.P.No.37361 of 2025;
W.A.No.338 of 2026 is directed against W.P.No.30708 of 2025;
W.A.No.341 of 2026 is directed against W.P.No.30836 of 2025 and
W.A.No.342 of 2026 is directed against W.P.No.30699 of 2025.
3. All the aforesaid writ appeals are against orders dated
16.12.2025 passed in W.P.Nos.37361, 30708, 30836, and 30699 of
2025 by the learned Single Judge.
4. Heard Sri P.S.Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for
Telangana Public Service Commission for appellant; Sri. M.V.Rama
Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 in W.A.No.337 of
2026; Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri
4
Srinivasa Rao Madiraju, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 in
W.A.No.338, 341 and 342 of 2026; Sri. S.Suman, learned
Government Pleader for Services-III appears for respondent No.2 in
W.A.No.338 of 2026 and perused the record.
Factual matrix
5. The appellant – Telangana State Public Service Commission
(hereinafter referred to as, “TGPSC”) issued recruitment notifications
bearing Notification Nos.29 of 2022 and 11 of 2022 for filling up
various Group-III posts, including the post of Extension Officer
(Supervisor) Grade-I. Pursuant thereto, the respondents-writ
petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the private respondents”), who
are residents of the State of Telangana, applied for the said posts and
participated in the selection process, on the basis of the requisite
educational qualifications possessed by them, namely Bachelor of
Commerce (B.Com) and/or Master of Arts (M.A.) in Sociology/Social
Work, which were obtained through the distance education mode
from Acharya Nagarjuna University (ANU), a State University
situated in Guntur, Andhra Pradesh.
6. A statement showing the writ appeals and the writ petitions
arising and the corresponding notification along with the date and
the post notified thereunder and the qualifications of the writ
petitioners, is tabulated hereunder for the sake of convenience:
5
WA’s WP’s Notification Date Post Qualification From
337/2026 37361/2025 29/2022 30.12.2022 Gr.III B.Com ANU
338/2026 30708/2025 11/2022 27.08.2022 EO- MA ANU
Group-I (Sociology)
341/2026 30836/2025 11/2022 27.08.2022 EO- MA ANU
Group-I (Sociology)
342/2026 30699/2025 11/2022 27.08.2022 EO- MA (Social ANU
Group-I Work)
7. However, the said courses were pursued by them through
study centres of the said University located within the State of
Telangana, including through arrangements which were in the
nature of study centres, operating beyond the territorial jurisdiction
of the parent University.
8. During the process of certificate verification, the TGPSC
scrutinised the educational credentials of the candidates with
reference to the conditions stipulated in the recruitment notifications
and upon such verification, the candidature of the private
respondents came to be rejected on the ground that the degrees
obtained by them through distance mode from study centres situated
outside the territorial jurisdiction of ANU were not valid, in view of
the binding norms prescribed by the University Grants Commission
(UGC), more particularly Public Notice No.F.27-1/2012 (CPP-II) dated
27.06.2013. The said stipulation was also expressly incorporated as
a condition in the subject recruitment notifications.
6
9. Aggrieved thereby, the private respondents filed the respective
writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, asserting that their
degrees could not be treated as invalid, particularly in view of Section
95 of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short,
“Reorganisation Act“) and G.O.Ms.No.178 dated 18.05.2014 and that
similarly situated candidates possessing degrees obtained from the
same University through distance mode had been considered and
appointed in earlier selections. The rejection of private respondents’
candidature by the TGPSC, despite their inclusion in the zone of
consideration based on merit and ranking in the General Ranking
List, was assailed as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance upon the common
order dated 12.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.25837 of 2024 and batch,
disposed of the underlying writ petitions vide order 16.12.2025 with
a direction to the official respondents to consider the cases of the
private respondents for appointment based on their merit and
eligibility, “as was done in the cases of appointment/promotions of
similarly situated candidates.” The learned Single Judge proceeded
on the premise of parity with earlier instances of appointment
without adjudicating the validity of the degrees in the light of the
governing statutory and regulatory framework.
7
11. Aggrieved by the said orders dated 16.12.2025, the appellant-
TGPSC has preferred the aforesaid writ appeals.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant-TGPSC
12. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-TGPSC,
advanced submissions assailing the impugned orders dated
16.12.2025 as under:
i) That the degrees possessed by the private respondents are void
ab initio insofar as public employment is concerned. It is
submitted that ANU, being a State University constituted
under the A.P.Universities Act, 1991 (for short ‘1991 Act’), has
its territorial jurisdiction confined to the districts of Guntur
and Prakasam, and any operation beyond such territorial
limits, including establishment of study centres in the State of
Telangana, is in clear violation of its parent statute as well as
the binding regulatory framework prescribed by the UGC.
ii) That the UGC Public Notice dated 27.06.2013, issued under
the provisions of the UGC Act, 1956, carries statutory force
and is binding on all Universities. Particular emphasis is
placed on clause (b) thereof, which mandates that a State
University shall operate only within the territorial jurisdiction
allotted to it under its Act and in no case beyond the territory
of the State of its location. That the recruitment notifications
issued by the TGPSC also expressly incorporated the said
8condition, thereby casting an obligation upon the candidates to
demonstrate the validity and recognition of their degrees,
which the private respondents have failed to discharge.
iii) That the learned Single Judge has erred in placing reliance
upon Section 95 of the Reorganisation Act, as the said
provision is limited in its scope to ensuring “equal
opportunities” in admissions to educational institutions for a
transitional period and does not confer authority upon a
University to act beyond its territorial jurisdiction or in
derogation of the UGC regulations governing distance
education.
iv) That the direction of the learned Single Judge, founded on
instances of past appointments, is legally unsustainable,
inasmuch as even if certain candidates with similar
qualifications were appointed in the past, such appointments,
being contrary to law, cannot be relied upon to claim parity. It
is further submitted that Article 14 of the Constitution of India
embodies a positive concept and cannot be invoked to
perpetuate illegality or to claim what is commonly referred to
as “symmetry of illegality,” the doctrine of negative equality
being a complete bar to such claims.
v) That the learned Single Judge has failed to follow the decision
in W.P.No.3006 of 2021, dated 17.08.2022, wherein it was
categorically held that degrees obtained through distance mode
9from ANU via study centres situated in the State of Telangana
are invalid for the purposes of higher education as well as
public employment in the State.
vi) That the private respondents, having consciously participated
in the recruitment process with full knowledge of the eligibility
conditions stipulated in the notification, are estopped from
challenging the same upon being unsuccessful. Having taken a
calculated chance, the private respondents cannot be
permitted to turn around and assail the process merely on
account of an unfavourable outcome.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents (writ petitioners)
13. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents (writ
petitioners), supported the impugned orders and contended that the
same does not warrant interference and advanced the submissions
as under:
i) That ANU was a University of the erstwhile composite State of
Andhra Pradesh, and by virtue of Section 95 of the
Reorganisation Act, read with G.O.Ms.No.178 dated
18.05.2014, the existing admission regime and institutional
arrangements stood protected for a period of ten years, and the
degrees obtained by the private respondents during the said
transitional period are valid for all purposes, including public
employment.
10
ii) That the action of the TGPSC is arbitrary and discriminatory,
inasmuch as similarly situated candidates possessing identical
qualifications from ANU have been appointed and promoted in
various departments, even subsequent to the issuance of the
UGC Public Notice of 2013. The selective rejection of the
private respondents, while extending benefits to others, is
alleged to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India.
iii) That the TGPSC, having accepted the applications of the
private respondents, issued hall tickets and permitted them to
participate in the selection process without demur, cannot
turn around at the stage of final selection and question the
validity of their qualifications.
iv) That the private respondents have placed on record certificates
issued by ANU indicating that the distance education
programmes pursued by them were recognised by the
UGC/Distance Education Bureau (DEB). It is contended that
once the course itself is recognised, the degree cannot be
invalidated solely on the ground that the study centre was
located outside the territorial limits of the University, such
aspect being an administrative arrangement within the domain
of the University.
14. We have taken note of the respective submissions urged and
the material placed on record.
11
Consideration by this Court
15. The fulcrum of the entire dispute is based on the validity of the
degrees possessed by the private respondents, in the light of the
statutory framework governing the University, the UGC regulations,
and the conditions stipulated in the recruitment notifications. The
ANU, constituted under the 1991 Act, has its territorial jurisdiction
confined to the districts of Guntur and Prakasam. The UGC Public
Notice dated 27.06.2013 mandates that a State University shall
operate only within its territorial limits and not beyond, which has
already been considered and affirmed by a learned Single Judge in
W.P. No. 3006 of 2021.
16. In the present case, the private respondents pursued their
courses through study centres located in the State of Telangana,
which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said University. In
view of the above, the degrees so obtained cannot be treated as valid
for the purposes of public employment, the same having been
acquired through a mechanism not sanctioned by the governing
statutory and regulatory framework.
17. Further, the reliance placed on Section 95 of the
Reorganisation Act, is misconceived, as the said provision is a
transitional arrangement intended to ensure continuity in matters of
admissions and to provide equal opportunities in access to higher
education for a limited period. It does not confer any substantive
12
right upon Universities to operate beyond their territorial
jurisdiction, nor does it dilute or override the statutory mandate of
the UGC or the provisions of the parent enactment governing the
University. Any interpretation to the contrary would amount to
enlarging the scope of the provision beyond its legislative intent and
cannot be countenanced.
18. The learned Single Judge has granted relief primarily on the
basis of past instances where similarly placed candidates were
appointed. In the considered view of this Court, such reasoning
cannot be sustained in law.
19. It is well settled that Article 14 of the Constitution embodies a
positive concept and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality.
The doctrine of ‘negative equality’, as laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and
others 1 is as follows:
34……By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law
enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by
a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has
been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a
wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of the higher or superior Court for repeating or multiplying
the same irregularity or illegality or for passing wrong order ….
(Emphasis supplied)
20. The appellant-TGPSC, being a constitutional authority has a
paramount duty to conduct recruitments strictly in accordance with
1
(2009) 5 SCC 65
13
the law, and cannot be compelled to repeat an illegality on the
ground of past practice.
21. It is also to be noted that in W.P.No.3006 of 2021, dated
17.08.2022, it has categorically held that distance education degrees
obtained from ANU through study centres situated in the State of
Telangana are not valid for the purposes of employment in the State.
22. Further, this Court in W.A.Nos.176 of 2026 and batch, has
allowed the appeals and set aside the common order dated
12.12.2025 in W.P.No.25837 of 2024 and batch, which formed the
basis of the impugned order. This Court has unequivocally held that
degrees obtained from ANU under the Distance Education Mode
through extra-territorial study centres in Telangana established in
violation of the mandatory UGC Regulations lack validity and do not
constitute valid qualifications for employment. In such
circumstances, sustaining the impugned order would entail an
impermissible departure from an established precedent and would
offend the settled principles of judicial discipline.
Conclusion
23. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view
that the degrees possessed by the private respondents do not
constitute valid qualifications for the purposes of public employment
in the State of Telangana. The condition stipulated in the
recruitment notification being explicit, the action of the appellant-
14
TGPSC in rejecting the candidature of the private respondents
cannot be faulted. The learned Single Judge was not justified in
directing consideration of their cases on merits, when the very
eligibility of the candidates stood vitiated. Therefore, the impugned
orders suffers from patent illegality and are liable to be set aside.
24. Accordingly, the Writ Appeals are allowed. The orders dated
16.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.37361,
30708, 30836 and 30699 of 2025 are hereby set aside, and the said
Writ Petitions shall stand dismissed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No costs.
__________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
__________________________________
G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J
Date: 09.04.2026
Note: LR copy to be marked.
B/o.
SZT
[ad_1]
Source link
