Shaik Salahuddin Sabir, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

SHAIK SALAHUDDIN SABIR,, S/O HAWALADAR MAHABOOB, AGE .32 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. 1-158, NEAR OLD POST OFFICE, MANGALAGIRIPADU (V), TURKAPALEM (P), MECIIKONDURU (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522 438.

¶11

SHAIK MASTAN SHAREEF,, S/O. SUBHANI, AGE .21 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. SRI SAI PUBLIC SCHOOL (BESIDE), BALACHANDRA NAGAR, KAREMPUDI (PANDM), GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522 614.

¶12

H.M. ZAHID HUSSAIN,, S/O. MD. ZAKIR HUSSAIN, AGE .37 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, RIO. D.NO. 18-16-10, LALAPET, GUNTUR, A.P. - 522 003.

¶13

SHAIK ABDUL HALEEM,, S/O. ABDUL MATEEN, AGE 25 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.14-4-98, POTTURUVARI THOTA, 4TH LINE, GUNTUR DISTRICT - A.P. - 522001.

¶14

SHAIK MASTAN SHARIEF,, S/O. SHAIK SUBHANI, AGE 28 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.7-200, BESIDE URDU SCHOOL, PERECHERALA (P), MEDIKONDUR (M), GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. - 522 005.

¶15

S.K. ZAMEER,, S/O. SK. KAREEM, AGE 31 YEARS, OCC . UNEMPLOYEE, R/O. 21-110-1, JANDA STREET, NELLORE - 1, A.P. - 524 001. (WP IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN IN SO FAR AS 6TH PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER C.O.DT. 21.01.2022 VIDE I.A.NO. 1 OF 2022)

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

2

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, AMARAVATHI

¶21

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶22

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶23

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, MARA PRADESH.

¶24

THE DISTRICT EDIRPFRMAL OFFICER, NELLORE, ANDHRA

¶25

MADDIRALA SWETHA, D/O. VISHWANADHAM AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. SGT URDU TEACHER, R/O. MCUPS NO. 110, SARADA COLONY, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶26

KALVA SANTHYA RANI, D/O. RATTAIAH AGED ABOUT 31YEARS, OCC. SGT URDU TEACHER, R/O. MCUPS NO. 95, NALICHERUVU, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶27

CHOWTA RAJESH, S/O. GOPALA KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. SGT URDU TEACHER, R/O. MCUPS NO. 71, PONNUR ROAD, GUNTUR DISTRICT .

¶28

GALL NAGESHWARA RAO, S/C. RAVI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. SGT URDU TEACHER, R/O. MCUPS NO. 70, OLD GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶29

PANITHI TEJASHWINI, S/O. BENARJI BABU, ABED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC. SGT URDU TEACHER, R/O. MCUPS NO. 72, LALAPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶30

KUKKAMALLA SWARNA, D/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT30YEARS, OCC. SGT TEACHER URDU RIO. MCUPS NO. 94, NAVABHARATH NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶31

KANDEIA SIREESHA KUMARI, D/O. KOTESHWARAR RAO, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. SGT TEACHER URDU, R/O. MCUPS NO. 69, HUSSAIN NAGAR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶32

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶33

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toplease to issue appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus by. (i)Calling for the record relating to and connected with the proceedings in RC.No.11970/A4/(A7)/2016

¶34

3

¶35

20.11.2020 and declare the same as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative to the orders passed in OA.No.3157/2016 and Batch dt.31.07.2017 and which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.46830/2018 dt,08.11.2019 and also by the award of National Lok Adalat dt.14.12.2019 and (ii)consequently declare the orders of appointments issued to the unofficial Respondents vide Proceedings Rc.No.9505/A4/2018, dt.20.10.2020 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and direct the Respondents to set aside their appointments or create superannuation posts and appoint the Petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu) w.e.f the date, the other candidates were appointed and grant seniority, promotion and all other benefits in compliance to the orders passed in OA.No.3157/2016 and Batch dt.31.07.2017 and which was reaffirmed by the Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.46830/2018 dt.08.11.2019. (iii)direct the 1st Respondent to conduct an enquiry for violating the Series of Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court as referred above and to pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs each to the Petitioner and recovery the same from the private purse of the persons responsible in the interest of justice and pass

¶36

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to suspend the impugned Proceedings No. Rc.No.11970/A4/(A7)/2016, Dt.20.11.2020 and direct the official respondents to appoint all the Petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers (Urdu) forthwith either in the existing Vacancies or by creating Supernumerary Post in the interest of Justice and pass

¶38

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶39

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased please to permit me (Petitioner No.6) to withdraw the present Writ Petition enabling me to continue as a secondary Grade Urdu Teacher in multiple Urdu boys Elementary School Guntur in the interest of Justice and pass

¶40

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶41

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may please be grant leave to file counter affidavit in WP.No.3245 of 2021 in the interest of justice ad may be pleased to pass

¶42

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶43

4

¶44

1.PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶46

1.MARELLA RADHA

¶47

2.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶48

The Court made the following:

¶49

ORDER:

¶50

Heard Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services II and Ms. Marella Radha, learned counsel for the unofficial 7^th to 13^th respondents.

¶51

The instant writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶52

“(1) Calling for the record relating to and connected with the proceedings in RC.No.11970/A4/(A7)/2016 20.11.2020 and declare the same as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative to the orders passed in OA.No.3157/2016 and Batch dt.31.07.2017 and which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court In W.P.No.46830/2018 dt,08.11.2019 and also by the award of National Lok Adalat dt. 14.12.2019 and

¶53

(ii) consequently declare the orders of appointments issued to the unofficial Respondents vide Proceedings Rc.No.9505/A4/2018, dt.20.10.2020 as wholly illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India and direct the Respondents to set aside their appointments or create superannuation posts and appoint the Petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher (Urdu) w.e.f the date, the other candidates were appointed and grant seniority, promotion and all other benefits in compliance to the orders passed in OA.No.3157/2016 and Batch dt.31.07.2017 and which was reaffirmed by the Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.46830/2018 dt.08.11.2019.

¶54

5

¶55

(iii) direct the 1^st Respondent to conduct an enquiry for violating the Series of Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court as referred above and to pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs each to the Petitioner and recovery the same from the private purse of the persons responsible in the interest of justice and pass such other order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶56

It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi that the petitioners were appointed pursuant to the directions of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3157 of 2016. The order of the Tribunal was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.46830 of 2018. The learned Senior Counsel thus submits that out of the 3 reliefs claimed in the writ petition, he is pressing for the following prayer alone:

¶57

“To grant seniority, promotion and all other benefits in compliance to the orders passed in OA.No.3157/2016 and Batch dt.31.07.2017 and which was reaffirmed by the Division bench of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.46830/2018 dt.08.11.2019.”

¶58

The brief facts of the case as per the writ affidavit are:

¶59

The petitioner was aspiring for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Urdu, having been fully qualified and eligible for recruitment to the said post. Urdu being a minority language, several posts reserved for the reserved category remained unfilled. In Guntur District, out of 14 posts notified, 7 posts reserved for the reserved category remained vacant, and similar situation prevailed in other districts.

¶60

6

¶61

It is contended that under the category of Urdu, several vacancies of Secondary Grade Teachers remained unfilled right from DSC-2008 and DSC-2016. Though several posts had been reserved for the reserved category, all the vacancies could not be filled up by selecting candidates. It is further contended that in terms of Rule 22(g) and (h) of the Andhra Pradesh State Subordinate Service Rules,1996, limited recruitment ought to have been undertaken for filling up such carried-forward posts.

¶62

It is contended that in 2011, a limited recruitment was undertaken, but even in that process the unfilled vacancies were carried forward to DSC-2012 and DSC-2014. Even in DSC-2014, the State Government failed to fill up the reserved vacancies. In 2014, the vacancies which remained unfilled were thrown open to the general recruitment. The petitioners are from DSC-2014, since the Government did not fill up the unfilled reserved vacancies, as per the procedure provided for limited recruitment, the petitioner was constrained to file an O.A. before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was disposed of with directions to the respondents to fill up the unfilled posts of Secondary Grade Teachers and Urdu Language Pundits pertaining to the reserved category by next candidates in the open competition as per their merit. Despite such directions of the Tribunal, which were affirmed by High Court, the respondents did not implement the order.

¶63

7

¶64

It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were eventually appointed as Secondary Grade Teachers (Urdu) pursuant to the directions of the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.3157 of 2016, which were affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.46830 of 2018, dated 08.11.2019, after filing of the present writ petition. In terms of the said order, a seniority list is required to be prepared. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the seniority list must be prepared strictly in accordance with Rule 33 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pilla Sitaram Patrudu and Others Vs. Union of India and Others¹ .

¶65

The learned counsel for the unofficial respondents Ms.Marella Radha argues that without de-reserving the vacancies earmarked for reserved category the respondents have appointed the petitioners only to comply with the directions of this Court and the said appointments were on a temporary basis. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim seniority over the unofficial respondents who were appointed in 2018 and if any such list is prepared the unofficial respondents should also be heard.

¶66

The learned senior counsel responding to the submissions of the learned counsel Ms. Marella Radha submits that the question of considering the objections of the unofficial respondents would not arise,

¶67

1 AIR 1997 SC 250

¶68

8

¶69

having regard to the fact that the petitioners are from DSC-2014 whereas the unofficial respondents are from DSC-2018. He further argues that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.Rammohan Rao Vs. K.Srinivas² , held that in preparing the seniority lists, hearing of the affected parties would not arise.

¶70

In the light of the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, as observed supra at para No.5, the other issues raised in the writ petition do not require any adjudication at this juncture, except the preparation of the seniority list. The said relief sought by the petitioners is in the nature of consequential relief to the main relief, of appointment as SGT.

¶71

The grievance of the petitioners who are selected candidates from DSC-2014, is that in terms of Rule 22 (g) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the respondents should have taken up the limited recruitment, and recruited by the next candidates in the open competition instead of throwing it to the next DPC. The inaction of the respondents was found fault by the Tribunal and directed the respondents to fill up the unfilled posts of Secondary Grade Teachers (Urdu) pertaining to the reserved candidates by next candidates in open competition as per their merit and the said order of the Tribunal was affirmed by the High Court, thus the petitioners have been appointed as SGT (Urdu), as per the

¶72

2 AIRONLINE 2025 SC 107

¶73

9

¶74

directions of the Tribunal, after filing of the instant writ petition. It is further alleged that the respondents have filled up the vacancies meant for the writ petitioners. It appears from the record that despite the orders of this Court, in W.P.No.46830 of 2018, dated 08.11.2019, the petitioners were not appointed till filing of the instant writ petition.

¶75

Rule 33 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, reads as follows:

¶76

“Rule 33:-

¶77

33. Seniority:- (a) The seniority of a person in a service, class, category or grade shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the date of his first appointment to such service, class, category or grade:

¶78

Provided that the seniority of a probationer or approved probationer in a service, class or category from which he stood reverted on the 1^st November, 1956 or prior to that date, shall be determined in the statewide gazetted posts in the Departments of the Secretariat and the offices of the Heads of Departments with reference to the notional date of continuous officiation with or without breaks in that service, class or category prior to the 1^st November, 1956 to the date of re-appointment made thereafter, but it shall not disturb inter-seniority which obtained in the Andhra State. (This proviso shall be in force till 31st October, 1996).

¶79

(b) The appointing authority may, at the time of passing an order appointing two or more persons simultaneously to a service, fix either for the purpose of satisfying the rule of reservation of appointments or for any other reason the order of preference among them, and where such order has been fixed, seniority shall be determined in accordance with it:

¶80

10

¶81

Provided further that the order of merit or order of preference indicated in a list of selected candidates prepared by the Public Service Commission or other selecting authority, shall not be disturbed inter-se with reference to the candidates position in such list or panel while determining the seniority in accordance with this rule and notional dates of commencement of probation to the extent necessary, shall be assigned to the persons concerned, with reference to the order of merit or order of preference assigned to them in the said list.”

¶82

Having regard to the above, this Court deems it appropriate to remand the matter to the 3^rd respondent for preparation of the seniority list in terms of the Rule 33 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996.

¶83