Andhra Pradesh HC Strikes Down Computer-Based Test Method For Appointment Of Teachers At Schools Receiving Grant-In-Aid

In the absence of a legislation permitting the Executive to introduce a new system of selection and appointment of teachers, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,

"Howsoever laudable the object of the proposed conduct of Computer Based Test (CBT) may be, the same cannot be introduced without being backed-up by a legislation or a subordinate legislation. It certainly cannot be done through an executive fate either in the form of an executive instruction or executive order. When the system which had been introduced for conducting Computer based test had been expressly set aside by striking down G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, the state cannot introduced the same system indirectly by an executive order or an executive instruction, for, what you cannot do directly, you cannot do it indirectly either.”

The Single Judge added,

“Although, the Court takes note of the increase in the competition and also increase in the number of applications for filling up the teacher posts, the state may take steps in bringing in a suitable legislation or subordinate legislation for introducing the new system that may be commensurate with the current needs and exigencies. Till such time, the State has not brought in a legislation or subordinate legislation by amending the Rule-12 and by deleting the Rule-13 of the Rules-1994, the State cannot introduced the Computer Based Test (CBT).”

Facts

The Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions challenging the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Guntur (Respondent 4), whereby, the new computer based system of selection and appointment of teachers was introduced. The primary contention of the petitioners was that the said proceedings were in contravention to the Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools in Private Management) Rules, 1993 (1993 Rules) which governed various aspects of running of schools under private management in the State.

Initially, in 2018, Rule 12 of the 1993 Rules, which dealt with appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff earlier and had a provision of written examination-cum-interview, was amended to include a new method of selection based on the State Level Computer Based Test/Examination. The provision for interview was thus dispensed with. The constitutional validity of the new method was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court, and vide Judgement dated 16.04.2019, the Government Order (G.O. M.s. No. 43) by which the amendment was introduced, was set aside and the earlier position of Rule 12 was revived.

It was the case of the petitioners that through the proceedings, Respondent 4 had tried to indirectly revive the dead-letter of the G.O. M.s. No. 43 after it had been expressly set aside by the Division Bench. The petitioners argued that the effect of the G.O. M.s. No. 43 could not be brought back, neither directly nor indirectly, into application by an executive fiat.

Contrary to this, the respondents contended that the Division Bench had not expressly set aside the Computer-Based Examination procedure, and to encourage a transparent mode of testing, Respondent 4 or the Competent Authority could prescribe such a procedure.

Thus, the Court had to primarily determine whether the method suggested by Respondent 4 was, in effect, the same as that of G.O.Ms.No.43, which stood quashed in its entirety by the Division Bench; and, whether it was permissible for the Executive to introduce a method through an executive fiat, which was set aside by the Division Bench.

Findings

On the issue of whether the new system introduced by Respondent 2 effectively mirrored the system envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.43, the Court observed that the computer-based test method was, in effect, the same. Consequently, the Court quashed the new system in its entirety.

In the absence of a legislation expressly authorising the executive to alter the existing system of appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff, the Single Judge was of the opinion that “until and unless the legislature makes an amendment to the Rules 1993, by introducing Computer Based Test (CBT) expressly dispensing with the system of Written Test and Interview, the Executive is not entitled to introduce a new system.”

Allowing the petitions, the Court directed,

“…having regard to the fact that the schools are now on summer recess and that by the date the Schools would be re-opened, there is a requirement for the Schools to appoint the Teachers at the earliest for the purpose of preparedness. For the purpose of achieving this preparedness, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to follow the procedure laid down in Rules 12 and 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 by completing the process within a period of three (03) weeks from today.”

Case Details

Case Number- W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch

Case Name- Sri Potti Sriramulu Upper Primary SPSUP School vs The State Of AP & Ors.