Allowed

The Dist.Educational Officer,Adilabad District and 3 Others v. P.Sampath Kumar, Adilabad District and Another

Telangana HC19 Oct 2022WP/6537/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order of the Administrative Tribunal regarding school teacher promotions. The Court held that since a similar issue was disposed of in W.P.No.24000 of 2010 via a common order dated 19.07.2011, the present petition merited the same outcome.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed pending the disposal of similar issues in the batch of W.P.No.24000 of 2010, with no costs awarded.

The Dist.Educational Officer,Adilabad… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Speciai Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 6537 OF 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

1 . The District Educational Officer, Adilabad District.

¶8

The Mandal Educational Officer, Sirpur Kagaznagar, MP Adilabad, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶9

The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶10

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

P.Sampath Kumar, S.G.T. MPPS, Govindapur Mandal, Sirpur-T, Ad,labad District

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh Admirristrative Tribunal, represented by its, Registrar, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad

¶15

(R2 is a formal party as no relief is sought against them)

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of^"Writ of Certiorari" calling for records relating and connected^with the order dated 11.08.2009 in OA.No.9362 of 2009 on the file of^{Hon'ble A.P.} Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to^quash or set aside the same by holding as erroneous and contrary to law.

¶18

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2010(WF MP. NO: 8434 OF 2010)

¶19

Petition under S3ction 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in srrpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operatior of the orders Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad dated^'l I.0t,.2009 in C.A No 9362 of 2009 pending final disposal of the writ petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SERVICES-I

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI CH. JAGANNADHA RAO

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: -

¶23

The Court made the fo lowing: ORDER

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶27

WRIT PETITION No.6537 of 2OLO

¶28

ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble Si Justice Abhinand Kumar Shautli)

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners has informed the Court that similar issue has fallen for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.24000 of 2010 & batch and this Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition uide orders dated 19.07.2011 and therefore, the present Writ Petition also deserves to be allowed.

¶30

In view of the above said submission, by following the order dated 19.07.2011 in W.P.No.24000 of 2010 & batch, the present Writ Petition also deserves to be allowed.

¶31

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is a-llowed. No costs.

¶32

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶33

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above. witness the Hon'bre tne ctiet Jusli.i-ui-iaL'eiii;iAN, on this wednesdav. rhe Nineteenth day of october, rn.-ir,irJii,J .iii*"nty r*o

¶34

¶35

To,

¶36

//rRUE coPY// ^.r,rriRfXEXHiH SEcTiofoFFIcER

¶37

1 Iy&33:r:ifr?,ror^{services-r,Hishcourt ror the state or retansana} at 2 One CC to SRt CH, JAGANNADHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC]

¶38

3 Two CD Copies.

¶39

flroiln,*,,n a Copyof the Orderdated 1g.O7.2011inW.p No.240O0 of 2010 & MP BS

HIGH COURT

DATED:1911012022

ORDER

WP.No.6537 of 2010

1 I\E SlA r{i
i
f) 13 JAl{ 208 z
-l- El4 i r.T
THE PETITION
WITHOUT COSTS

¶45

ALLOWING THE

¶46

')^

¶47

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE GHULAIV IVIOHAIUN/ED AND

¶48

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶49

W.P.Nos.24000,2887 & 23994 of 2010

¶50

col\rtMoN oRDER: ( Per GM,J)

¶51

Since the issue involved in all these three writ petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶52

The claim of the unofficial respondents, who are applicants in the OA, is that they are eligible and qualified for promotion to the post of School Assistant in their respective subjects as they have completed two years B.Ed., course. The cases of the un-official respondents were not considered in the^promotion counseling held on 29-1-2A09 on the premise that their final year B.Ed examination results have not been announced by then. The OAs filed by the unofficial respondents disposed of with a,direction to the respondents therein to^issue promotion orders posting the unofficial respondents as School Assistants by keeping in^view of the^instructions issued by the Director and Commissioner^{of School} Education dated 10-1 0-2001,^within a^{period ot two} weeks. Challenging the same, the^{present writ petitions}

¶53

have been^p-eferred.

¶54

The short^point that arises for consideration^{in these} writ petitions is that whether the applicantsun-official re;pondents are entitled for^promotion to^the post of Scho,rl Assistant.

¶55

Learned Government Pleader for Services-l contends that the aprplicants did not possess the essential qualification cf B.Ed., degree as on 1-9-2008 and thus, they are inelilible for^promotion as School Assistants.^He further conte'nds that it is mandatory to possess the qualification rrescribed before the process for promotion is taken up r.nd actual date of promotion is not relevant. He also cont{)nds that the teachers, who are eligible as on the original rlate of counseling i.e., 29-1-2009 had been considered frlr promotion and that the candidates, whose results were published after the date of coun5eling, cannot be treated as qualified. He further contends that the applicant,l have not qualified in the B.Ed., examination as on 29-1-2()09,

¶56

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that if the petitioners taken cut of date as 1-9-;1008 for eligibility criteria for the panel year 2008-2009, they have to compute the vacancies up to 318-2009. He further submits that the petitioners never

¶57

followed Rule 6 of the General Rules by following the panel year for effecting promotion to the post of School Assistant and that putting the cut of date as 1-9-2008 is illegal. He further submits that in similar set of circumstances the candidates who are qualified subsequent to the cut of date i.e., 1-9-2008 have been considered for promotion. He further submits that the petitioners are not following the rules issued in G.O.[/s.No.15 for promotion taking the qualifying date as 1st September of the year. He also submits that the respondents are entitled to the promotion and the impugned orders need no interference.

¶58

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶59

A perusal of the material brought on record goes to show that the Commissioner & Director of School Education vide proceedings dated 19-2-2009 issued instructions to all the DEOs/RJDSEs to the effect that the promotion counseling for the post of Head Master Gr.ll and School Assistant should be started on

¶60

2g-1-2OOg and that the teachers who are eligible as on the original date of counseling i.e., 29-1^{-2009 have} to^be considered for promotion in the counseling. As the applicants had not^qualified in the B.Ed., examinations^as on 29-1 -2009, their cases were not considered^for

¶61

promotion lty the promotion counseling^committee. Further, vidr, G.O.l\4s.15, Education^{Departmentdated} 26-1-2OOg the Government^notified Special^{Rules- As per} Rule 2, 1st September of the^year is reckoned^as qualifying date to detune eligibility. For better appreciation, it may be extracted hereunder^:

¶62

"The e ppointing authorities shall draw panels of eligible School Assistants lor appointmenl by transfer to the t,ost of Head Master Gr.ll Gazetted and lists of SGTs ;Lnd equivalent categories for promotion to the posts cf School Assistant and equivalent categories for prornotion to the posts of School Assistant and equival3nt categories every year duly assessing the vacanc es of the respective calegories from lst Septenber to 31sl August ol succeeding^year, arising due to r3tirement,^promotions etc. 1^st September of the year wi I be reckoned as qualifying date to determine the eligibility of candidates. The panel list shall be drawn in consultation with the Selection Committees as per Rule 6 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 as amended from time to time and the instructions issued thereon."

¶63

ln view^(,f the above Rule, the cut of date for eligibility was 1-9-200,3 for the panel prepared for the year 20082009. AccorJing to Rule 6 of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules a fit list has to be prepared for promotion to the post of School Assistant and equivalent categories e,tery year duly assessing the vacancies of

¶64

¶65

respective category from 1st September to 31st August of succeeding year arising due to retirement, promotion etc. Even as per the said Rule, the respondents are not eligible for promotion as they appeared for the qualifying examination held from 19-12-2008 to 30-1 2-2008 i.e., after the cut off date.

¶66

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the respondents did not possess the essential qualification of B.Ed., as on^'l -92008, we have no hesitation to hold that the orders of the Tribunal are not sustainable and therefore, they are liable to be set aside.

¶67

ln the result, all the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the orders impugned herein. No costs.

¶68

GHULAM IVIOHATUMED,J

¶69

K.G.SHANKAR,J

¶70

rkk Dated: 19-7-201¹

The Dist.Educational Officer,Adilabad District and 3 Others v. P.Sampath Kumar, Adilabad District and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Dist.Educational Officer,Adilabad District and 3 Others v. P.Sampath Kumar, Adilabad District and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Damodarnath, Mbnr Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Education Dept. and 3 Ors.

M/S. Syed Bajan, Nalgonda Dist Vs Divisional Railway Manager, Guntur, and 4 Others

T. Narasimhulu, Medak District Vs High Court of A.P. Hyderabad and 2 Others

Mr. G.Amarnath Vs Union of India

A. Laxmaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

The District Educational Officer,Adilabad and 3 Others Vs R.Mohan, Adilabad District and 13 Others