Dismissed

The Regional Joint Director v. K.Mangatayaru, W/o. Late K.Kasulu

Telangana HC10 Nov 2014WA/1450/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge by the School Education authorities to an order approving a compassionate appointment. The Court held that when a post exists and qualifications are relaxed, the specific clauses in Government Orders regarding bans or new scopes do not prevent approval, directing the authorities to approve the appointment.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the appellants were directed to accord approval for the respondent's appointment within four weeks.

The Regional Joint Director Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM +W.A.No.1450 of 2014

¶3

% Dated 10.11.2014

¶4

# The Regional Joint Director, School Education, Kakinada and another.

¶5

….Appellants

¶6

$ K.Mangatayaru and another.

¶7

….Respondents

¶8

! Counsel for the appellants : G.P. for Education ^ Counsel for 1^st respondent : party-in-person

¶9

^ Counsel for 2^nd respondent : ---

¶10

< GIST:

¶11

> HEAD NOTE:

¶12

? CASES REFERRED:

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶15

W.A.No.1450 of 2014

¶16

JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)

¶17

Respondents 1 and 3 in W.P.No.32758 of 2001 filed this writ appeal, feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 04.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.32758 of 2011. Briefly stated, the facts are as under:

¶18

The Hindustan Shipyard, Visakhapatnam established a composite institution of Junior College and High School, mostly for the benefit of the children of its employees. The institution was admitted to grant-in-aid. The husband of the 1^st respondent herein, by name K.Kasulu was employed as a Librarian in the High School section of the Institution. He died on 03.07.2000 while in service. Thereupon, the 1^st respondent filed an application before the 2^nd respondent with a request to appoint her on compassionate grounds as Attender. Since there was no response from the 2^nd respondent, the 1^st respondent approached the District Collector, Visakhapatnam. On a direction issued by him, the 2^nd respondent appointed the 1^st respondent as Attender on temporary basis through order, dated 24.01.2005 against an existing aided vacant post in High School section with a consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/-. It was mentioned that the appointment is purely temporary and subject to approval or relaxation of qualifications and admission of the post to grantin-aid by the competent authority. On representation made by the 2^nd appellant, the Director of School Education issued proceedings dated 08.07.2005 relaxing the qualifications for the post of Attender, in favour of the 1^st respondent.

¶19

Complaining that her case was not being considered for approval against aided vacancy, the 1^st respondent filed W.P.No.537 of 2006 before this Court. The appellants pleaded that the matter pertaining to appointment of children of deceased employees of private aided educational institutions is governed by G.O.Ms.No.113, dated 06.10.2009 and that the case of the 1^st respondent does not fit into that. The writ petition was disposed of on 04.08.2011 leaving it open to the 1^st respondent to make a representation, for consideration of her case, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.113, dated 06.10.2009. A representation was made, and in compliance with the order in the writ petition, the 1^st appellant passed an order dated 30.09.2011 observing that G.O.Ms.No.113 is not applicable to the case of the 1^st

¶20

respondent and accordingly rejected her representation. W.P.No.32758 of 2011 was filed challenging the said order.

¶21

The contention of the 1^st respondent was that once she has been appointed against aided vacancy and the qualifications for that post were relaxed in her favour, there was absolutely no basis for the appellants in not according approval for the appointment. In their counter affidavit, the appellants took shelter under G.O.Ms.No.113 for not acceding approval to the appointment of the 1^st respondent. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to consider the case of the 1^st respondent for admission into grant-in-aid, and to pass orders expeditiously preferably within 8 weeks. The said order is challenged in this writ appeal.

¶22

Learned Government Pleader for Education submits that the case of the 1^st respondent cannot be considered for two reasons viz., the ban imposed by the Government against making appointment in private aided educational institutions is in operation; and G.O.Ms.No.113 which is in operation does not apply to the case of the 1^st respondent.

¶23

The 1^st respondent appeared in person. She contends that the appointment was against an existing vacancy and the ban is only against creation of new vacancies in the aided institutions or making appointment in the usual course. It is urged that G.O.Ms.No.113 has just have the effect of widening the scope of employment but not creating any new avenue, as such.

¶24

Ever since the husband of the 1^st respondent died, the 1^st respondent has been going around the institution as well as the authorities of the Government seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. It was only in the year 2005, that the District Collector saw reason and justification in her plea and issued directions to the 2^nd respondent. That resulted in issuance of the order of appointment, dated 24.01.2005, which reads:

¶25

“In pursuance of the orders issued by the District Collector, Visakhapatnam and as per the Judgment orders of

¶26

the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide writ petition No.20937 of 2004, Smt. K.Mangathayaru, W/o. Late Sri K.Kasulu who worked as Librarian in the Grant-in-aid part in Hindustan Shipyard Junior College, Visakhapatnam and expired while in service on 03.07.2000 is hereby appointed temporarily as an Attender on compassionate grounds in the existing Aided Vacant post in Hindustan Shipyard Junior College, High School Section under the same Management consolidated pay of Rs.1,000/-.

¶27

Her appointment is purely temporary subject to the approval of qualification relaxation and admission to Grant-inaid orders from the competent authority viz., the Commissioner of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as per the reference (3) above.

¶28

She is directed to report to duty immediately. “

¶29

From this, it becomes clear that the appointment, though temporary, was made against an existing aided vacancy, but was subject to relaxation of qualifications and approval of appointment by the competent authority. The Director of School Education is the authority competent to relax the qualification. He issued proceedings, dated 08.07.2005 relaxing qualifications, paving the way for approval of appointment. On account of these developments, there should not have been any difficulty for the 1^st appellant to accord approval. Nowhere it was mentioned that the ban, that is imposed by the Government would come in the way of appointment of the 1^st respondent, being approved.

¶30

The 1^st respondent filed W.P.No.537 of 2006 feeling aggrieved by the non-approval of her appointment against aided vacancy. Obviously because the appellants placed heavy reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.113, the writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to the 1^st respondent to make a representation for consideration of her case in terms of G.O.Ms.No.113, and corresponding direction to the appellants to pass orders in terms thereof. The appellants stuck to their stand that G.O.Ms.No.113 does not apply. Therefore, it becomes necessary to have a glance about the purport of the said G.O.

¶31

The facility of appointing the dependants of employees, who died while in Government service was created for the first

¶32

time in the year 1997 by issuing G.O.Ms.No.687 dated 03.10.1977. That facility was extended through G.O.Ms.No.30, dated 01.02.1994 to the private institutions admitted to grant in aid or those established by Zilla Parishads or Municipalities. The scope of appointment of the children of the deceased employees of private aided educational institutions was widened through memo, dated 18.05.1995 making them eligible to be appointed in Government Offices or Schools in the District. That facility however was withdrawn through memo dated 04.07.1997. The scheme however continued to be in force. Thereafter, representations poured in to the Government from the unions and public representatives for restoration of the facility of enabling the appointment of the children of deceased employees of the private educational institutions in Government Offices and Schools also. It was in that context, that G.O.Ms.No.113 was issued reviewing the earlier scheme in that behalf. In other words, the effect of G.O.Ms.No.113, is not the one of reviewing the scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of the deceased employees of private aided educational institutions, as such. On the other hand, it is only for widening the scope of such appointments by treating the District as a unit.

¶33

The scheme, in its basic form was in vogue, uninterruptedly. The only difference was that between 1997 and 2009, the facility of providing appointment on compassionate grounds outside the institution in which the deceased employee was working, was not in force. The 1^st respondent does not fall under that category. The result would be that her case would be considered for providing appointment on compassionate grounds only in the 2^nd respondent-institution and not outside the same. Once she has been appointed on 24.01.2005 in an existing vacancy in the 2^nd respondent institution, G.O.Ms.No.113 virtually becomes irrelevant for her case. The plea of the appellants that a ban on appointment on compassionate grounds is operating, becomes unacceptable for another reason. If in fact, the Government was operating a ban

¶34

against appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of the dependants of the employees of private aided educational institutions, it becomes un-understandable is as to how and why G.O.Ms.No.113 was issued. Not a word is said about the operation of the ban at any stage much less in the said G.O. Viewed from any angle, the action taken by the appellants in rejecting the case of the 1^st respondent for approval of her appointment cannot be sustained in law.

¶35

Therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed. We make it clear that what is at issue now, is just the approval of the appointment of the 1^st respondent made through order, dated 24.01.2005 and since the facility of relaxation of qualifications was extended to her through memo dated 08.07.2005 by the Director of School Education, the appellants are directed to forthwith accord approval for the appointment of the 1^st respondent within a period of 4 weeks from today

¶36

The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ appeal shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶38

______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶39

Date:10.11.2014 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked Issue C.C. in one week. JSU

¶40

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶41

W.A.No.1450 of 2014

¶42

Date: 10.11.2014

¶43

JSU

The Regional Joint Director v. K.Mangatayaru, W/o. Late K.Kasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Joint Director v. K.Mangatayaru, W/o. Late K.Kasulu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Apsrtc, Vs S.S. Narayana

R. Srinivasa Setty, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

N. Ravi Kumar, Vs The General Manager

The Divisional Manager/Regional Manager, Vs Vesapogu Sudhakar Rao

Mizbaba Vs Mrs T.Praveena

Mizbana, Vs v.Vijaya Lakshmi