Disposed

T. Salmon Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Apr 2010WP/27071/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Government to consider the petitioners' representation for absorption into grant-in-aid posts within two months, resolving the dispute over their irregular appointments without addressing the substantive eligibility criteria or the validity of the appointments.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider the representation for absorption into grant-in-aid posts within two months.

T. Salmon Raju Vs Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 27071 of 2003.

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not ratifying the irregular appointments of the petitioners in the 6^th respondent school in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 301 Education (PS.1) Department dt. 25.09.1997 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to ratify the irregular appoints and absorb the petitioners in the vacant grant-in-aid Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) posts in the 6^th respondent school from the date when the posts fell vacant, considering the length of continuous service put in by the petitioners.

¶5

It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners joined as Secondary Grade Teachers on 29.1.1996 and 15.9.1997 respectively in the 6^th respondent school being run by the 5^th respondent, after getting selection by the Special Selection Committee constituted by the 5^th respondent. The petitioners have been working as Secondary Grade Teachers from the date of their appointments without any remark and to the satisfaction of their superiors. It is further stated that the 6^th respondent school was admitted to grant-in-aid through G.O.Ms.No. 365 Education (PS.2) Department dt. 10.10.1994 and sanctioned five SGT posts and only one teacher was absorbed into grant-in-aid post by the proceedings No. Rc 41-B2/97 dt. 10.12.1997 of the 4^th respondent.

¶6

It is further stated that while the matter stood thus,

¶7

W.P.No. 15921 of 1989 and batch were filed, by certain private Managements of the schools who have made irregular appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff in violation of rules of the A.P. Education Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools) Rules 1988 (for short ‘the Rules’), challenging the vires and validity of Rule 15 of the Rules and this Court disposed of the said writ petition and batch by the Order dt. 21.12.1996 and issued certain directions to the Government. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Government constituted a committee through G.O.Ms.No. 301 Education (PS.1) Department dt. 25.09.1997 to examine the irregular appointments and by the date of issuance of above Government Orders, the petitioners were already appointed in the 6^th respondent school. It is further stated that the Committee constituted considered the cases of the candidates appointed only as per G.O.Ms.No. 524 dt. 20.2.1988 and that G.O.Ms.No. 32 dt. 25.01.1999 was issued approving 202 appointments and by the said G.O. three more teachers were absorbed in grant-in-aid posts in the 6^th respondent school. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though they were appointed much prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.09.1997, the 6^th respondent school did not send their names to the Committee for consideration.

¶8

It is further stated that by G.O.Ms.No. 905 School Education (PS.3) Department dt. 18.09.1998 one more teacher was absorbed in grant-in-aid post and out of these teachers, one teacher left the service of the school on 13.08.1998 and another teacher retired from service on 31.3.2002 and thus two grant-in-aid posts have fallen vacant. The petitioners have made a representation to the 2^nd respondent on 24.7.2003 seeking to regularise their posts and that the 5^th respondent through his letter

¶9

dt. 22.09.2003 addressed the 4^th respondent recommending the names of the petitioners for their absorption in grant-in-aid posts. The grievance of the petitioners is that since no action has been taken by the respondents in the matter of regularising their services in grant-in-aid posts in the 6^th respondents, they are before this Court for the relief, already adverted to above.

¶10

The 4^th respondent, who is the District Educational Officer, East Godavari filed counter on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4 admitting about the jointing of the petitioners on 29.1.1996 and 15.9.1997 respectively as Secondary Grade Teachers in the 6^th respondent school but it is stated that their appointments was without permission or intimation to the Department. It is further stated that mode of appointments was specified in G.O.Ms.No. 1 dt. 01.01.1994 and the selection of the petitioners by the special staff selection committee is not in accordance with the rules and the orders of their appointments are not available either with the petitioners or with the Management and the orders are not produced before the competent authority and that so many breaks have been noted by the management in the attendance register every year in respect of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners are not regular teachers even in unaided posts. It is further stated that any appointment made in aided or unaided post has to be approved by the competent authority i.e. the District Educational Officer but no such approval is made in the case of petitioners. It is further stated that G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.9.1997 mainly deals with irregular appointments made by the aided managements without following the recruitment procedure as laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 524 Dt. 20.12.1988. It is further stated that the 6^th respondent school has been admitted to grant-in-aid with five secondary grade teacher posts and that one

¶11

R.Lakshmivaram working in the school as secondary grade teacher prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 524 dt. 20.12.1988 was absorbed in one of the five posts and she retired from service on 31.3.2002. It is further stated that the Government have constituted a High Level Committee by G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.9.1997 to examine the irregular appointments made without following G.O.Ms.No. 524 dt. 20.12.1988 and that G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.9.1997 is replaced by G.O.Ms.No. 1 dt. 1.1.1994 and therefore the petitioners cannot seek to regularize their services as per G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.9.1997. In the light of the facts narrated above, it is prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

The case of the petitioners is that they have been working as Secondary Grade Teachers in the 6^th respondent school, which was admitted to grant-in-aid for five SGT posts, from 29.1.1996 and 15.9.1997 respectively having been selected by the Special Selection Committee constituted by the 5^th respondent and that though the Government constituted a High Level Committee by G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.9.1997, which was issued pursuant to the orders of this Court dt. 21.12.1996 of this Court in W.P.No. 15921 of 1989 and batch, to examine the irregular appointments made without following G.O.Ms.No. 524 dt. 20.12.1988, the names of the petitioner were not referred to the High Level Committee by the 6^th respondent school and that though they made a representation dt 24.07.2003 seeking to absorb their services into grant-in-aid posts, to the 2^nd respondent, which was forwarded by the 5^th respondent to the 4^th respondent, their cases are not being considered for absorption of their services. Further case of the petitioners is that still two aided SGT posts are vacant in the 6^th

¶14

respondent school.

¶15

On the other hand, the contention of the respondents 1 to 4 is that the very appointments of the petitioners is without permission or intimation to the 4^th respondent and that either the petitioners or the management of the 6^th respondent failed to produce the appointment orders of the petitioners before the competent authority. Further contention of the respondents 1 to 4 is that so many breaks have been noted in the attendance register pertaining to the petitioners and therefore the petitioners cannot be said to be working continuously from the date of their alleged appointments. Further contention of the respondents 1 to 4 is that the Government have constituted a High Level Committee by G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.9.1997 to examine the irregular appointments made without following G.O.Ms.No. 524 dt. 20.12.1988 only and that since by the dates of appointments of the petitioners, G.O.Ms.No. 1 dt. 01.01.1994 was issued replacing G.O.Ms.No. 301 dt. 25.09.1997, the grievance of the petitioners that their names were not referred to the High Level Committee cannot be sustained and that since the appointments of the petitioners was not made in accordance with extant G.O.Ms.No. 1 dt. 01.010.1994, the petitioners are not entitled to be absorbed into grant-in-aid posts.

¶16

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that there are two grant-in-aid posts of Secondary Grade Teachers are still vacant in the 6^th respondent school. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners have been working as Secondary Grade Teachers from 29.1.1996 and 15.9.1997 respectively in the 6^th respondent school. There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioners are qualified to hold the posts. The fact that the 6^th respondent school is being run by the

¶17

5^th respondent i.e. the District Collector & Ex-officio President, East Godavari District goes to show that the 6^th respondent school is not a private school. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have been working from 29.1.1996 and 15.9.1997 respectively and having regard to the fact that the petitioners are qualified to hold the posts, without going into the claims and contentions of the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:

¶18

The respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioners dt. 24.07.2003 addressed to the 2nd respondent, which was forwarded by the 5^th respondent to the 4^th respondent recommending the names of the petitioners for their absorption into grant-in-aid posts and pass appropriate orders, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

G.CHANDRAIAH,J 09.04.2010. krb.

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 27071 of 2003.

¶22

Dt. 09.04.2010.

T. Salmon Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Salmon Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Johnson Vs Prl. Secy for Fin.and Plg. Dept. Hyd AND3ORS

M.Balayya, Vs Visakhapatnam Port Trust

B. Vikram Reddy Vs B. Pramod Kumar Reddy

D.Amanullah Vs The Joint Collector, Kurnool

Lankireddy Siva Reddy, Vs Thamma Koti Reddy

P.Venkateshwar Raju, Vs a.P.State Housing Corporation Ltd.