Dismissed

G.Narayana Reddy, v. The Regional Joint Director of School Education

Telangana HC23 Aug 2012WP/19505/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the rejection of his claim to the post of Record Assistant. The Court held that the statutory authority's finding, based on material on record that the service records were not genuine, was neither perverse nor based on no evidence, and refused to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed without costs.

G.Narayana Reddy, Vs The Regional Joint Director… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.19505 OF 1999

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the proceedings of the 1^st respondent dated 17.05.1999, and the proceedings of the 4^th respondent dated 08.05.1992, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶4

The petitioner claims to have passed X Class, and to be qualified to hold the post of Record Assistant. It is his case that the 4^th respondent institution is an aided institution under the control of respondents 1 to 3; due to upgradation of the primary school to that of a High School, the Correspondent had appointed him as a Record Assistant on 15.06.1986; subsequently, by order dated 10.02.1992, his services were regularised; his probation was declared with effect from 15.06.1986 in the post of Record Assistant; and the same was recorded in the Service Register maintained as per rules. The 4^th respondent, by order dated 12.11.1989, is said to have informed the District Educational Officer, Kurnool that the school had become a fullfledged Secondary School, and that the petitioner was appointed as a Record Assistant on 15.06.1986. While the affidavit details the chequered history of the dispute it would suffice to note that this Court, by order in Review W.P.M.P. No.5813 of 1999 in W.P. No.2683 of 1997 dated 02.04.1999, disposed of the Review Petition directing the 1^st respondent to fix a date for hearing of the appeal by himself and, after giving notice to all the parties, pass an order afresh. This Court also directed that the parties should appear before the Regional Joint Director on 10.05.1999 at 3.00 p.m., and that he should, after hearing arguments, pass orders within two weeks thereafter.

¶5

The 1^st respondent, by proceedings dated 17.05.1999, rejected the petitioner’s claim to have been appointed as a Record Assistant. A perusal of the said order would show that, on the basis of statements made by different persons, the 1^st respondent recorded certain findings. The 1^st respondent held that the petitioner had neither produced the original appointment order nor a copy of the resolution of the management granting approval for such an appointment; he had only produced a photostat copy of the appointment order attested by M. Narayanachar; during the said period it was Sri I. Ramadass Batt who was the Correspondent, and not Sri M. Narayanachar; the Head Master had certified that the petitioner was never appointed as a Record Assistant for any post in the Vignana Peetam High School; he had also stated that the petitioner’s name, found in the acquitance and attendance registers, were created by Sri M. Narayanachar-the then Correspondent, and the then Secretary who was the petitioner’s brother. The appellate authority further observed that, on verifying the Service Register produced by the petitioner himself, it was evident that all the entries therein were written by the petitioner and attested by Sri M. Narayanachar; there were no signatures or initials of either the Head Master or the Inspecting Officer; the separate attendance and acquitance register maintained during that period did not seem to be genuine; there were no attestation of either the correspondent or the Head Master or the Inspecting Officer; he was of the opinion that the petitioner’s contention that he worked in Vignana Peetam High School, Kurnool was not correct and was not tenable; and, therefore, the petitioner had no claim to the said post of Record Assistant.

¶6

Sri Ch. Jagannadha Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would dispute the finding recorded by the 1^st respondent that the

¶7

petitioner had not produced the appointment order, and would draw attention of this Court to the proceedings dated 15.06.1986 which he claimed to be the appointment order. The said document is a photostat copy, and not the original. While the name of Sri I. Ramadass Batt as Correspondent is mentioned therein, it does not even contain his signature. It is attested by Sri M. Narayanachar, the then Correspondent, and is said to be a true copy. It is evident, therefore, that the petitioner has not produced even the original copy of the appointment order before this Court or a copy of the resolution approving his alleged appointment.

¶8

The 1^st respondent has also held that all the entries in the Service Register produced by the petitioner were written by him and attested by Sri M. Narayanacha and that the said registers did not seem to be genuine. This Court, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, does not sit in appeal over findings of the fact recorded by statutory authorities under the A.P. Education Act save perversity, or findings based on no evidence. The findings of the 1^st respondent is based on the material on record, and are neither perverse nor are they based on no evidence. It is also necessary to note that this Court, by its order in W.P.M.P. No.24429 of 1999 in W.P. No.19505 of 1999 dated 16.09.1999, observed that, as the petitioner was not in service, the question of suspending operation of the order did not arise and, as such, the petitioner’s application for interim directions was dismissed. It is evident, therefore, that the petitioner has not continued to work in the 4^th respondent school after the Writ Petition was filed by him. As his very appointment in the 4^th respondent school has been disbelieved by the 1^st respondent (which finding is based on the evidence on record), I see no reason either to

¶9

interfere with the order of the 1^st respondent, or to grant the relief sought for. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.

¶10

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J

¶11

23.08.2012 MRKR

G.Narayana Reddy, v. The Regional Joint Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Narayana Reddy, v. The Regional Joint Director of School Education

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

. Vs -

Deccan Research Park Private Limited Vs -

Alexandria Gachibowli II Tech Park Private Limited Vs -

G.Parvathalu, Vs Government of a.p.

The Personnel Officer, Vs Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court

P.Ramarao, Vs The General Manager