Partly allowed

Vaddi Punyavathi v. State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Jul 2022WP/5848/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court declared the respondent's order rejecting the petitioner's appeal regarding denied service points as illegal and arbitrary. It set aside the order and directed the respondent to dispose of the appeal adhering to specific government guidelines within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.02.2021 set aside; directed respondent to dispose of appeal/revision strictly adhering to Guidelines 19 and 20 within four weeks.

Vaddi Punyavathi Vs State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 5848 of 2021

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-

¶5

“ to issue a Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus d eclaring the order passed by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.No.9/A1/A3/2021, dated 05.02.2021 in rejecting the petitioner’s appeal by denying the service points acquired by the petitioner from his previous station i.e MPUP School, Ungarada, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, w.e.f 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to compute and award the previous station points to the petitioner for the service rendered by the petitioner in MPUP School, Ungarada, Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, w.e.f 19.08.2009 to 09.08.2017 on par with others and allot suitable place in Rajam Mandal or Regidi Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District nearby petitioner’s spouse working place at MPPS Pamulavalasa, Therlam Mandal, Vizianagaram District by retransfer and to grant such other or further orders…… .”

¶6

Heard Mr. Taddi Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for the respondents.

¶7

Brief facts of the care are that :

¶8

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, School Education (Services-II) Department issued G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020, under Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 in order to facilitate and regulate the transfers of Teachers and Headmasters Grade-II, working in Government/ZPP/MPP schools in Andhra Pradesh. The Government has also issued Transfer Guidelines along with G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 and called for applications from

¶9

¶10

the eligible candidates through Online system. Accordingly, the District Educational Officers of all Districts of A.P. issued District wise provisional Seniority list as per the records available with them.

¶11

As per Rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020, reapportion points, the Grade-II Headmaster and Teachers, who are affected reapportion are eligible for extra 5 points over and above already secured points. As per Rule 6 of the above G.O., with regard to entitlement points, common points, the entitlement points shall be awarded to the Teachers for the service rendered in the present school points. Rule 6 of the said guidelines, as under:

¶12

“ 6. Entitlement Points – Common Points

¶13

Entitlement points shall be awarded to the Headmaster Gr.II/ Teachers service rendered in the Points present School, Category as on 1str October of the year in which transfers are to be taken up in the following manner:

¶14

(i) (a) For every year of service in category IV areas 5

¶15

(b) for every year of service in category III areas 3

¶16

¶17

(d) for every year of service in category I areas 1

¶18

It shows that teachers, who are effected rationalization under compulsory transfer, though they are entitled for continuation at particular school upto 8 years but however, due to rationalization they are effected and the compulsory transfer from the present place of school. It is also stated that some of them have got transfer/postings in the previous transfer counseling in the year 2015 and 2017 and some of them recently

¶19

¶20

promoted and posted against the surplus posts also respectively. As such, they lost their previous station points. In view of Clause- 6 of G.O.Ms.No.54 the petitioners getting only 1 to 4 years service points accordingly due to which they secured less entitlement points than the others and in accordance with Clause-2 (i)(a) of the said G.O. It is also relevant to state that as per guideline No.12(ii) of the said G.O.Ms.No.54, which reads as under:

¶21

(ii) After the last date for applying for transfers as per Schedule, the seniority list shall be prepared, using software for generating the entitlement points management wise, category wise, subject wise, medium wise and the seniority list with entitlement points shall be published in the website specified for the purpose and also on the notice board of District Educational Officer/Regional Joint Director of School Education.”

¶22

The District Educational Officers after receipt of the objections if any from the individuals has to verify all the objections and pass orders in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government. In as much as, the guideline No.14(i) and (ii) says about the objections and after passing orders only, the District Educational Officers has to made necessary corrections if any in Seniority List and publish the same on website. The Guideline No.17 i.e., issue of Transfer Orders, 17(i) says that “the competent authorities concerned shall issue posting orders to all the HMs/Teachers of one category in one proceedings only, duly enclosing the names of the teachers transferred and places of postings on transfer in one annexure. Earlier, the petitioners have filed W.P.No.5077 of 2021 before this Court along with others seeking declaring the action of the respondents in not considering their applications seeking for

¶23

¶24

revision of their transfers for calculation of previous station points in addition to the present station points as illegal, contrary to the orders of the Court dated 25.11.2020 in W.P.No.22026 of 2020 and Batch and this Court vide order dated 25.02.2021 disposed of the writ petition directed to follow the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 and as such the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent is liable to be set aside. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the relief as stated above.

¶25

No Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents.

¶26

During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions urged in the writ petition and whereas learned Government Pleader requested to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the Guidelines 19 and 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020.

¶27

On hearing this Court observed that according to guidelines annexed to G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020, more particularly, Guidelines 19 and 20 deals with Appeal and Revision. According to Guideline 19, (i) An appeal against the orders of the District Educational Officer shall lie with the Regional Joint Director of School Education concerned, and an appeal against the orders of the Regional Joint Director of School Education shall lie with the Commissioner of School Education such appeal should be submitted within 10 days; (ii) All such appeals shall be disposed off by the Appellate authorities concerned within 15 days from the date of receipt of the appeal; (iii) The teachers who have any grievance on the transfer

¶28

¶29

counseling should avail all levels of appeal provisions before going for legal remedies.

¶30

According to Guideline 20(i) The Director of School Education may either suo-moto or on an application received from any person aggrieved by the orders of the Transfers Committee may call for and examine the records in respect of any proceedings of transfer to satisfy himself about its regularity, legality or propriety. If in any case, it appears to him that any such proceedings should be revised, modified, annulled or reversed or remitted for reconsideration, he may pass order accordingly or remand the case with any direction so as to rectify be implemented by the authority concerned; (ii) The Director of School Education may stay the implementation of any such proceedings, pending exercise of its powers under guideline 29(i) above (ii) Revision exercise and issue of orders shall be completed within 4 weeks from the date of issue of the transfer orders. No extension shall be permissible.

¶31

In view of these two Guidelines, an appeal can be filed within ten (10) days from the date of effecting transfer orders and Revision shall be disposed of within four (04) weeks from the date of issue of such transfer orders, but closure of transfer counseling is not a ground to reject the appeal or revision filed under Guidelines 19 and 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 30.03.2021 issued by the 3^rd respondent is illegal and arbitrary and the same is hereby declared as violative of principles of natural justice.

¶32

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.No.9/A1/A3/2021, dated 05.02.2021, i ssued by the 3^rd respondent . Further, the 3^rd respondent is directed to dispose of the appeal/revision filed by the petitioners strictly adhering to Guidelines 19 and 20 of G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 12.10.2020 within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶34

10. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

¶36

______________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

Date : 14-07-2022

HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶41

WRIT PETITION No.5848 of 2021

¶42

Date : 14.07.2022

¶43

Vaddi Punyavathi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaddi Punyavathi v. State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Girijamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B. Kodanda Chetty Vs Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam

E. Rama Krishna Rao Vs The Joint Commissioner (State Tax)

C.Easter Prema Kumar Vs The Tirumala Tirupati. Devasthanams

Kurela Issack Vs the State of Ap

M. Vidya Sagar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh