Amaravati, Aug 4 (IANS) The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Tuesday took up for hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), seeking orders for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation into alleged irregularities in Mega DSC-2025 for recruitment of teachers.
Senior Advocate and former Andhra Pradesh Advocate General, S. Sriram Subrahmanyam, appearing for the petitioner, urged the High Court to order a CBI investigation into the entire recruitment process.
He argued that the alleged irregularities were not isolated incidents but rather pointed to a systemic failure affecting the fairness and integrity of the recruitment.
After hearing the submissions, the High Court posted the matter for further hearing after three weeks.
Sriram argued that the government made major changes to the sports quota policy just before issuing the Mega DSC-2025 notification. He pointed out that the reservation under the sports quota was increased from 2 per cent to 3 per cent. He also submitted that the requirement of qualifying in the entrance examination was removed. According to the counsel, these changes benefited a predetermined group of candidates and were introduced without transparency.
The counsel submitted that several candidates allegedly received appointments by relying on sports certificates that did not meet the prescribed eligibility rules. He placed sample certificates before the court and argued that some candidates had only participated in local competitions instead of recognised state or national-level events. He contended that these examples showed a pattern of irregularities and not isolated mistakes.
Sriram pointed out that the government later withdrew the Government Orders relating to the sports quota after public criticism. According to him, this withdrawal itself raised serious questions about the policy changes and justified an independent investigation.
The counsel informed the court that much of the material relied upon had been obtained through Right to Information (RTI) applications and other public sources. He explained that only representative examples had been filed before the court because the government had not published the complete merit list.
Contending that many affected candidates had not approached the court because they feared legal action and intimidation, he also argued that government communications discouraged the publication of allegations relating to the recruitment process, and undertook to place supporting material before the court.
Addressing the petitioner’s political affiliation, the counsel submitted that the PIL was filed in the larger public interest as the issue affected thousands of teacher aspirants. He argued that while individual writ petitions could address personal grievances, only a PIL could seek an investigation into the systemic issues affecting the recruitment process.
–IANS
ms/vd