WP/5549/2020 of Smt.A.Rita Grace Bai, Vs The State of A.P., on 31 December 2024

ORDER:

The Writ Petitionis filed under Article 226 of the[Constitution][ of][ India,]

seeking the following relief:

Conclusion

“to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly[one]inthe nature of Writ of mandamus declaring (1) the[action][ of]respondents 1 and 2 in rejecting my case for absorption[with][ effect]from 01.01.2000 instead of 15.05.2004 is illegal, discriminatory[and]in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India[and][ the][ Memo]NO.ESE02-17/190/2019-PSI-CSE,dated31.12.2019andtheconsequential proceedings as illegal and contrary to[the][ provisions]of the Education Act, 1982 and (2) the action of the[respondents][ in]fixing the petitioners remunerationas per the G.O.Ms.No.lOO,dated 16.08.2001, though the said G.O.is not applicabletotheteachers, working in unaided posts more than two years[is][ illegal]and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the[petitioner]with effect from 01.01.2000 with all consequential[benefits][ with][ the]pay scales of relevant period by setting aside the[Memo.No.ESE02-]17/190/2019-PSI-CSE, dated 31.12.2019”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the 5^^ respondent-school[made]anadvertisement in the daily newspaper inviting applications[for][ appointment][ as]Secondary Grade Teacher in un-aided posts as per the[procedure.][ The]petitioner selectedin termsof the procedure contemplatedbytheStaffSelection Committee. On 26.05.1997, the appointment[of][ the][ petitioner][ was]made in a post which fell vacant because of superannuation[of][ one][ of][ the]teachers, whois working as Secondary Grade Teacher.Thereafter,thepetitioner was appointed in aided post of Secondary[Grade][ Teacher,][ due][ to]vacancywhich had arisen on 31.12.1999. Consequently, the management[of]

theS"" respondent-schooliissued proceedings appointing the petitionerasSecondary Grade Teacherwitheffectfrom30.05.2000.Basingontherecommendationsofthe5*^respondent,therespondentsubmittedproposaltothe2^^^respondent on 27.12.2000. Theproposal sent by4^'"respondent deary indicates the Deputy Inspectorof Schools, Urban Range,Visakhapatnam, submitted proposalon 21.09.2000 to absorb the petitioner ingrant-in-aid vacant post. Pursuant torecommendation dated 27.12.2000, the2'^^respondent addressedalettervideL.Dis.No.112/D1-2/2002,,dated15.05.2004 stating that the 3'"^respondent informed that as per G.O.Ms.No.75,Education, dated 23.09.2002,the petitioner is required to be absorbedinaidedpost. Consequently, the4**^respondentissuedproceedingsdated02.09.2004 i.e., aftera lapse of 5 months, from the dateof order passed bythe2ndrespondentstatingthat. pursuant to recommendations made byDeputy Inspector of Schools, dated 21.09.2000, the petitionerwas absorbedingranti-in-aidpostbuttheremunerationwasfixedintermsofG.O.Ms.No.100, Educationdated 16.08.2000 and thepetitioner was paidconsolidatedpayofRs.1200/-in1yearandRs.1500/-in2"‘iyear.Thereafter, the petitioner maderepresentation on 29.09.2004 stating that sheiseligible for absorptionason 01.01.2000 and alsorequestedtowaiveG.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001,as it IS a case for absorption. Ignoring therecommendations whichwere made by competent authority on 27.12.2000

i

i the petitioner was absorbed only with effect from 02.09.2004. The petitionerfiled W.P.No.24898 of 2005 before this Court and the same was disposed of,vide order dated 24.04.2016, directing the respondents to pass appropriateorders'on the proposal of the 2'"'^ respondent, dated[25.11.2004.][ Pursuant][ to]same, the 4‘^ respondent addressed a letter dated 01.02.2017, narrating thefacts that the petitioner filed the writ petition contending[that][ she][ is][ entitled][ for]absorption in aided post with effect from 01.01.2000[instead][ of][ 15.05.2004][ on]par with the persons covered by proceedings in Rc.No.1211/D1-3/1 999, dated24.01.2005. Thereafter, the 2"^ respondent addressed a letter forwarding therecommendations made by the 4*^ respondent by submitting proposals to the1®* respondent for issuance of order of absorption with retrospective effectfrom 01.01.2000 instead of 15.05.2004 and requested to issue necessaryorders.' But the 2'^'^ respondent vide Memo No.ESE02-17/190/2019-PSI-CSE,dated31.12.2019rejectedtheappealof thepetitionertoconsiderherabsorption with effect from 01.01.2000 instead of 15.05.2004. Aggrieved bythe same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. The 4*^ respondent filed counter affidavit denyingall the allegationsmade in the writ petition.It is stated in the counter affidavit that, on receipt ofproposals from the 5'^ respondent through the Deputy Inspector of Schools(Urban), Visakhapatnam, the said proposals have been[submitted][ to][ the][ 2]ndrespondentvideLr.Rc.No.1448/A6/2000,dated27.11.2000readwithmade in the writ petition.It is stated in the counter affidavit that, on receipt ofproposals from the 5'^ respondent through the Deputy Inspector of Schools(Urban), Visakhapatnam, the said proposals have been[submitted][ to][ the][ 2]ndrespondentvideLr.Rc.No.1448/A6/2000,dated27.11.2000readwith GovernmentMemoNo.2029/17/SMPCDepartment,dated04.02.1999 ^ndcommunciatedvideL.Dis.No.3811/D1-2/98,dated 25.02.1999bythe2respondent. The 2""^ respondent vide proceedings Rc.No.11/B2-1/2[001,][ dated]12.03.2001and 02.07.2001requested the4^^ respondenttosubmittheproposals for absorption of petitioner along with checklist[and][ connected]papers duly attested by the 4^^ respondent and accordingly[the][ same][ were]re-submittedbythe4threspondentvideLr.Rc.No.1448/A6/2000,dated4'*^ respondent15.03.2002 and 06.08.2003. After submitting the same,[the]receivedtheproceedingsissuedbythe3rdrespondentvideProgs.Rc.No.4628/B2/2003, dated 30.09.2003 with a requestto submit adetailed report as called for by the 2'^^ respondent[vide][ Progs.Rc.No.112/D-]3/2002dated 20.08.2003. Accordingly, a brief report[regarding][ the][ selection]submittedtothe3rdrespondentvideprocessofpetitionerwasRc.No.1448/A6/2000, dated 28.10.2003. Subsequently,[necessary][ information]wassubmitted to the petitioner to the3'^^ respondent[vide][ Lr.Rc.No.1448/]A6/2000, dated 19.01.2004 of the4^'' respondent. After[going through][ the]ndrespondentvideproposalsandentirematerialonrecord,the2tProgs.Rc.No. 112/DI-2/2002, dated 15.05.2004 has informed[that,][ as][ per][ Para]No.7 of G.O.Ms.No.75, Education Department, dated 23.09.2002[guidelines]which were issued for absorption of the un-aided teachers[into][ Grant-in-Aid]posts. Basing on the above, the 4'*' respondent vide[Rc.No.1448/A6/2000,]

\

dated 25.08.2024 requested certain information for petitioner’s absorption asdirected by the2^'^ respondent and basing onthe necessaryinformationsubmittedbythemanagement,permission was accordedtoabsorbtherpetitionerintoGrant-in-Aidwitheffectfrom15.05.2004.Subsequently,clarification was requested by the 4*^ respondent vide Rc.No.1448/A6/2000,dated 02.09.2004 to the 2"'^ respondent for her absorption[with][ effect][ from]01.01.2000orfromthedateofissuanceofG.O.Ms.No.75,EducationDepartment, dated 23.09.2002 or from the date of order of 2"^^ respondent.

4. Heard Sri M.Devi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner[and][ learned]Assistant Government Pleader for Education, for the respondents.Assistant Government Pleader for Education, for the respondents.

5. Onhearing,learnedcounselfor thepetitioner whilereiteratingthecontents urged in the writ petition, submits that, there are 17 Secondary GradeTeachers posts in the 5‘^ respondent-school and out of 17 aided posts,3posts fell vacant due to their retirement on attaining the age of superannuationand based on the strenght of school, the petitioner[was][ recommended]forabsorption as Secondary Grade Teacher. He further submits that, when thepetitioner worked in an un-aided post more than three years, the question ofapplicability of G.O.Ms.No.100 does not arise. He further submitsthat,insimilar circumstances, Sri K.Umamaheswar Rao and Smt.Ch.Rama Sita, wereappointed and given effect from the date when the vacancies[had][ arisen.][ But]contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, there are 17 Secondary GradeTeachers posts in the 5‘^ respondent-school and out of 17 aided posts,3posts fell vacant due to their retirement on attaining the age of superannuationand based on the strenght of school, the petitioner[was][ recommended]forabsorption as Secondary Grade Teacher. He further submits that, when thepetitioner worked in an un-aided post more than three years, the question ofapplicability of G.O.Ms.No.100 does not arise. He further submitsthat,insimilar circumstances, Sri K.Umamaheswar Rao and Smt.Ch.Rama Sita, wereappointed and given effect from the date when the vacancies[had][ arisen.][ But]

in the present case, the petitioner was absorbed only from 15.05.2004. Hefurther submits that the 2"^^ respondent brought to the notice ofrespondentabout absorbing the similarly situated teachers from the date on which theaided posts fell vacant and informed that as per the guidelines availableas onthat date, the petitioner is entitled for absorption into aided post.It is furtherinformed that G.O.Ms.No.75 also came into force after two years of the postfell vacant, as such the question of retrospective applicability of G.O.Ms.No.75granting absorption from the date of approval by the competent authority hasno applicationin the caseof thepetitioner. He furthersubmitsthatthepetitioner is entitled for arrears of pay for the period on which she was put inconsolidated pay in terms of G.O.Ms.No.100 and entitled to be absorbed witheffect from 01.01.2000, the date on which the aided post fell vacant as the 5'^respondentissuedtheappointmentorder aspertheRulesinvogueappointingthepetitionerinanaidedpost andsentcommunicationforapproval, as such the impugned order, dated 31.12.2019is liable to be setaside. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriateorders.

6. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating thecontents madein the counter affidavit, submits that, the teachers whowereworking in Lucky aided school, though appointments were made in 1998, theircases were considered from the date of appointments only. He further submitscontents madein the counter affidavit, submits that, the teachers whowereworking in Lucky aided school, though appointments were made in 1998, theircases were considered from the date of appointments only. He further submits K

w

that, as per the Government Memo issued on04.02.1999,the vacancieswhich arose after issuance of memo, the process of approval and absorptionshould be done with the concurrence of the finance department and henceher case was consideredinpursuance tothe Memo. Whereas,asthevacancies arose prior to the issuance of Memo, their[cases][ were][ considered]from the date of arising vacancies and thus, the petitioner[is][ not][ entitled][ for]similarrelief. He further submits that,in view of[the][ Section][ 2][ of][ Act 9][ of]A.P.Private Aided Educational Management Staff (Regulationof pay) Act,2000, the petitioneris entitled for absorption from the date of approval ofappointment i.e., prospectively in terms of rulesin vogue/existed as on thedate. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled from the date of arising vacancy doesnot arises, as the same is against the provisions mentioned[in][ Section][ 2][ of][ Act]9 of 2000. Accordingly, the 2'’'^ respondent issued disposal orders in MemoNO.ESE02-17/190/019-PS-1-CSE, dated 31.12.2019 informing the petitionerthat the appeal to consider her absorption with effect[from][ 01.01.2000][ instead]of 15.05.2004 is rejected and the orders were communicated[to] the petitionervideProgs.lnFileNo.DEO/228/2020-JA(AIDEDHA)-DEOVSP,dated14.02.2020 by the 4**^ respondent. Therefore, learned[Assistant][ Government]Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.

7. Perused the record.

8. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 4*^respondentissuedordersvideRc.No.1448/A6/2000,dated27.12.2000,whereinit is mentioned, as follows;respondentissuedordersvideRc.No.1448/A6/2000,dated27.12.2000,whereinit is mentioned, as follows; At present 14 SGT teachers are working in the school[outof]17 posts of SGBT sanctioned to the school. 3 SGBT teacherswereretiredfromserviceonattainingtheageofsuperannuation.In view of the present strenght ie.,1009 (both Boys[and]Girls) of the school there is a need to absorb Smt A.Rita GraceBai, unaided teacher into grant-in-aid post caused due to theretirement of Smt M.Jeevana Jyothi, SGT on 31-12-99.In this connectionrequest that permission may kindly[be]accordedfor absorptionof Smt.A.RitaGracebai,Unaidedapprove teacher into the vacant aided post caused due[to] theretirement of Smt M.Jeevana Jyothi, Sec. Grade Teacher.I request early action in the matter.”

9. Having regardto the facts and circumstancesof the case andonconsidering the submissions of both the learned counsels,it is observed that,admittedly the proposals for absorption of petitioner in aided post were sent inthe year 2000. But the 2"^^ respondent vide L.Dis.No.112/D1-2/2002, dated15.05.2004, recommended the 5*'" respondent to take steps for appointing thepetitioner into Grant-in-Aidpost.It seems that, there are delay latchesinconsidering the case of the petitioner on the part of respondents only. Hence,this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, while declaring the action of therespondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for absorption with effectfrom 01.01.2000 instead of 15.05.2004 as illegal and arbitrary.considering the submissions of both the learned counsels,it is observed that,admittedly the proposals for absorption of petitioner in aided post were sent inthe year 2000. But the 2"^^ respondent vide L.Dis.No.112/D1-2/2002, dated15.05.2004, recommended the 5*'" respondent to take steps for appointing thepetitioner into Grant-in-Aidpost.It seems that, there are delay latchesinconsidering the case of the petitioner on the part of respondents only. Hence,this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition, while declaring the action of therespondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner for absorption with effectfrom 01.01.2000 instead of 15.05.2004 as illegal and arbitrary.

10. Accordingly, the WritPetitionis allowed. The impugned[Memo]videN0.ESEO2-17/190/2019-PSI-CSE,dated31.12.2019isherebysetaside.N0.ESEO2-17/190/2019-PSI-CSE,dated31.12.2019isherebysetaside.

Further, the respondents are directed to absorb the petitioner with effect from01.01.2000 with all consequential benefits, within a period of four (04) monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending,if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- N NAGAMMAASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary (Education), Secretariat, Velagapudi,Amaravathi, Guntur District.Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner and Director of. School Education, Ibrahimpatnam,Vijayawada, Krishna District.Vijayawada, Krishna District.

3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education,[Kakinada.]

4. The District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam, VisakhapatnamDistrict.District.

5. Correspondent, Prema Aided Primary School, Daba Gardens,Visakhapatnam.Visakhapatnam.

6. One CC toSri. Devi prasad mangalapuri Advocate [OPUC]

7. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT],

8. Two CCs to GP For School Education, High Court of[Andhra][ Pradesh][OUT].[OUT].

9. One CC to K Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUC].

10. Three CD Copies

AL

i

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDER

WP.No.5549 of 2020

52 h JAN 2025^Current Section. ^

ALLOWING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS