Teacher Recruitment Must Prioritise Merit as They Shape Future Citizenry: Andhra Pradesh High Court Warns Against Quality Dilution
Candidates must be allowed to exercise informed choice after results; appointment must follow merit
Justice Nyapathy Vijay, Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that candidates in teacher recruitment cannot be denied appointment to higher posts solely on the basis of preferences exercised at the time of application, emphasising that any dilution in the quality of recruitment is contrary to public interest, as teachers shape the future citizenry.
The Court noted that public employment must ultimately be governed by merit and that any interpretation of recruitment rules defeating merit would be legally unsustainable, particularly when doing so would defeat the objective of securing the best qualified teachers.
The bench also rejected the State’s argument that vacancies had already been filled, noting that interim directions had been issued earlier to consider the petitioners’ claims, and the authorities could not defeat those orders by proceeding with appointments.
Justice Nyapathy Vijay observed, “…the restraint in selecting the meritorious is domicile and in the present cases, the restraint is on account of priority/preferences exercised at the time of submission of the application. In either case, the selection of less meritorious is not in the interest of the future society. The recruitment in the present cases is for “Teachers”, who are to shape the future citizenry and any dilution in the quality of the recruitment is not in the interest of the same”.
“It is to be noted that the Union Government concerned with the quality of teaching in schools enacted the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 prescribing minimum qualifications to the Teachers. The Rules and regulations thereunder are followed by all the States. The purpose of the enactment in prescribing minimum qualifications of Teachers is to ensure that best faculty is available to the future citizenry. The attempt of the State in Teacher recruitments should be to ensure that the purpose of the enactment in letter and spirit is carried into the selection processes and not other way round as was done in these cases”, the bench further observed.
Advocate Kavitha Gottipati appeared for the petitioner.
The matter pertained to a Mega DSC-2025 teacher recruitment process in Andhra Pradesh through a notification dated 20-04-2025. The petitioners had applied for multiple teaching posts, including School Assistant and Secondary Grade Teacher, and had exercised preferences at the time of submitting their applications.
After the examination, they secured higher merit ranks that made them eligible for appointment as School Assistants. However, the authorities denied them those posts and instead considered them only for Secondary Grade Teacher positions, relying on Rule 10 of the recruitment rules, which treated the preferences exercised at the application stage as binding.
The High Court on finding this approach fundamentally flawed, observed that at the time of application, candidates cannot predict their marks or merit rank, and therefore any preference exercised at that stage cannot be treated as a conscious or informed choice.
The Court noted that an uninformed preference cannot operate as a bar against a candidate seeking appointment based on actual merit. It said that the binding nature of a preference arises only when it is exercised with full knowledge of one’s merit position.
The Court further observed that public employment, though governed by statutory rules, is also rooted in basic contractual principles of offer and acceptance. In the present case, there was no proper offer of appointment based on merit, and the rejection of the petitioners’ claims solely on the basis of earlier preferences lacked legal foundation.
It also questioned the rationale behind not allowing candidates to revise their preferences in a computerised recruitment system, observing that providing a window to exercise options after declaration of results would have ensured fairness without affecting the recruitment process.
Therefore, the High Court interpreted the relevant rule to mean that preferences exercised at the application stage cannot override merit once the merit list is prepared. It directed the authorities to consider the petitioners for appointment to the higher posts in accordance with their merit rank and to complete the exercise within the stipulated timeframe.
Cause Title: Kamireddy Bhavani v. The State of Andhra Pradesh W.P.Nos.23243 and 23487 of 2025
Appearances:
Petitioner: Kavitha Gottipati and G.V.S. Kishore Kumar, Advocates.
Respondent: G.P. for Services -II