Appeal dismissed. Court held petitioners' services were already absorbed in 1993; inclusion in 1999 order was erroneous but did not require interference.
No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
and
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No. 780 of 2006
% 01.12.2014
Between: # Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.
... APPELLANTS Versus
$ V.Soma Sundaram and others.
...RESPONDENTS
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS :- G.P. for School Education
^COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1&2:- Smt.Anasuya
? Cases Referred: (1). 1997 (6) ALD 331
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT APPEAL No.780 of 2006
JUDGMENT:- (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.4124 of 2000 filed this writ appeal feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 11.07.2005, passed by the learned Single Judge.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.
The petitioners were appointed as Teachers in respondent No.5-institution. The institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by the Government through its order in G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 01.09.1992. Consequent upon that, the services of the petitioners were absorbed against the posts of B.Ed. Assistants and proposals in that behalf were submitted by the institution. The District Educational Officer, respondent No.4 herein, accorded approval for such absorption through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993. In the context of absorption of Teachers working in the private educational institutions against the aided vacancies, certain
problems were faced. In certain cases, the initial appointment against the unaided vacancies was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the Government issued orders of relaxation in certain cases and similar facility was denied in other cases. A batch of writ petitions was filed before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court dealt with the matter, in detail, through its judgment reported in K.C. High School, Guntur Vs. Government of A.P. Edn. Dept., Hyderabad[1] . The Bench has directed that the Government shall constitute a committee to work out the modalities of absorption of the unaided teaching and non-teaching employees in aided institutions wherever such appointments were made contrary to the prescribed procedure, duly extending the benefit of relaxation. Further direction was that such of the candidates, who are found to be eligible for absorption, must be absorbed against the aided vacancies with effect from 1.4.1997, irrespective of the date of their appointment or the date of admission of the institution into grant-in-aid or the date on which the vacancy has arisen.
After undertaking the exercise indicated by this Court in the Judgment referred to above, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999 absorbing the services of certain Teachers in institutions in the Districts of Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East Godavari, West Godavari and Chittoor. The names of the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.14 and 15 in the Annexure appended to the G.O. Treating that the services of the petitioners were regularised only with effect from 01.04.1997 under G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, the respondents sought to ignore the earlier absorption of the petitioners. Therefore, they filed the
writ petition challenging the said G.O. The principal contention advanced by them was that once their services were absorbed against the aided vacancy through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993, issued by respondent No.4, there was no occasion for the respondents to deal with their cases under the judgment of this Court or the G.Os. issued thereunder.
The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the initial appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the Rules and since it needed relaxation, their cases were also considered in compliance with the judgment of this Court in K.C. High School’s case. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through the order under Appeal.
Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education for the appellants and Smt.Anasuya, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Whenever an institution is admitted to grant-in-aid, the existing Teachers are absorbed in the vacancies that are brought under that purview. That, however, would be possible, if only their initial appointment was in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Respondent No.5 was admitted to grant-in-aid through G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 01.09.1992. By that time, the petitioners were in service of the institution. The proposals were submitted by the institution for absorption of the petitioners against the aided vacancies. After examination of the matter in detail, respondent No.4 accorded approval through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993.
Ever since then, they are being paid the emoluments by the Government and other facilities were also being extended.
Neither the petitioners nor respondent No.5 made an effort to seek relaxation for absorption against the aided vacancies. This is obviously because the services of the petitioners were already absorbed in the year 1993 itself. However, a general and comprehensive exercise was undertaken by the concerned authorities in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in K.C. High School’ s case and the scheme framed by the Government thereafter. Inadvertently or otherwise, the case of the petitioners was also considered by those authorities and their names were included in the list annexed to G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, giving an impression as though they were absorbed for the first time with effect from 01.04.1997. That happened under a total misapplication and misconception of the scheme. Neither in the judgment nor in the G.Os. issued pursuant thereto, any indication was given to the effect that the exercise would cover the cases of the Teachers who have already been absorbed and such absorptions have been approved.
In case the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, is to be treated as constituting the review of the absorption of the petitioners that took place in the year 1993, the basic requirement was to issue notice to them and then pass orders. There is not even a remote reference to the orders, dated 29.03.1993, passed by respondent No.4 in its G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999. At no stage of the proceedings, the petitioners or the Management were put to notice. Inclusion of
the names of the petitioners in the enclosure to G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, cannot be sustained in law. The learned Single Judge has taken such a view, though by stating some different reasons. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal.
Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
_______________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J Date:01.12.2014
Note: L.R. copy to be marked. kdl
[1] 1997 (6) ALD 331
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inclusion of petitioners' names in G.O.Ms.No.92 dated 03.12.1999 reviewing their earlier absorption requires notice and a fresh decision.
Whether the Earlier absorption approved in 1993 precludes the need for reconsideration under judicial pronouncements.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.C. High School, Guntur Vs. Government of Andhra PradeshExplained¶22
K.C. High School, Guntur Vs. Government of A.P. Edn. Dept., Hyderabad
K.C. High School, Guntur Vs. Government of Andhra PradeshExplained¶22
1997 (6) ALD 331
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
V. Soma Sundaram and others
L. Narasimha Reddy
Challa Kodanda Ram
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
