WP/17542/2020 of Balasa Rajasekhar, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 31 December 2024

Conclusion

1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR EDUCATION

2. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

The Court made the following:

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3[rd]respondent in issuing the impugned memo vide Re.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, Dated 30-03-2020 and in not considering his candidature for absorption into vacant Aided posts stating a reason that the 5[th] Respondent institution has only one sanctioned post contrary to his own proceedings vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, Dated 11-04-2014 and the online records available stating that the 5[th] Respondent institution has only one sanctioned post and also as per the clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.40, Dated 30-06-2017 as being arbitrary, illegal and violating Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the proceedings vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, Dated 30-03-2020 issued by the 3[rd] Respondent contrary to the own proceedings vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, Dated 11-04-2014 and also consequently direct the Respondents to forthwith consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 02-04-2020 as per G.O.Ms.No.41, Dated 30-06-2017 without reference to clause 6 and G.O.Ms.No.75, Dated 23-09-2002 which was withdrawn by the Government 1[st] Respondent itself through G.O.Ms.No.96, Dated 04-12-2006…..”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner got appointed in the 5[th]respondent institution as qualified teacher on Un-Aided basis since 24.06.2005 to till date. The 5[th] respondent management requested the authorities to absorb the petitioner into existing aided vacancy from 24.06.2005. The 2[nd] respondent issued speaking orders vide Rc.No.0231/PS-1/2013, dated 03.09.2014 stating that, as per rules in vogue the request of the petitioner for absorption into Grant-in-Aid w.e.f. 2005 is not feasible for compliance and liable for rejection and further stated that the petitioner acquired requisite qualification in the year 2005 and by that time, the Government imposed the ban on appointment/absorptions in aided posts vide Memo No.12080/COSE/Edn./04, dated 20.10.2004. The Ban imposed by 1[st]respondent was challenged by managements through batch of writ petitions vide W.P.No.9503 of 2005 and batch before this Court and the same was allowed suspending the ban. Subsequently, the respondent authorities filed Writ Appeals and special leave petitions and all of them were dismissed.

While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 30.06.2017 stating that the teachers that who are working in un-aided approved posts as on 23.09.2002 and being continued till date shall be entitled for absorption and teachers working in un-aided posts after the cut-off date shall not be considered for absorption. It has been categorically stated that the absorption is only a one-time measure and that the candidate cannot ask for regularization in future. Such an embargo is an artificial one and made out in the premise that G.O.Ms.No.75, School Education, PS-II, dated 23.09.2002 is existing as on 30.06.2017. Thereafter, the Government withdrew G.O.Ms.No.75 through G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 04.12.2006. The petitioner submitted representation dated 25.06.2013 for absorption into Aided post. The 3[rd] respondent submitted a detailed report to the 2[nd] respondent vide Rc.No.62-V8/2013, dated 11.04.2014 stating that there are two sanctioned SGT posts, out of which one post is vacant. But the 3[rd] respondent issued speaking orders vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, dated 30.03.2020 rejecting the request of the petitioner for absorption into Aided post. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. This Court, vide order, dated 29.09.2020, has granted the following interim order:

“Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the interim prayer sought in this petition can be granted by directing the respondents to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner upon perusing the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the interim prayer sought in this petition can be granted by directing the respondents to forthwith consider the representation of the petitioner dated 02.04.2020 as per G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 30.06.2017 without reference to clause 6 and G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 23.09.2002 which was withdrawn by the Government-1[st] respondent itself through G.O.Ms.No.96, dated 04.12.2006 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks.”

4. The 3[rd] respondent filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the writ petition. It is stated in the counter affidavit that there is only one sanctioned post in the 5[th] respondent school with Grant-in-Aid. The concerned management without obtaining prior permission from the Competent Authority and without following the prescribed procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994, though only one aided post is sanctioned, issued orders to the petitioner for appointment in Un-Aided post during the year June-2003. At the time of appointment the petitioner does not have requisite qualification to hold the post of SGT and the petitioner acquired requisite qualification in June-2005. The 5[th] respondent had submitted a request to absorb the petitioner into Aided SGT Vacancy from 24.06.2005. The said request was rejected by the 2[nd]respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.2031/Ps-1/2013, dated 03.09.2014. The petitioner working in un-aided post itself is not approved by the competent authority under Rule 12 (3) in G.O.Ms.No.1, SE (PS-I) Department, dated 01.01.1994. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the proceedings vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, dated 30.03.2020 is not at all contrary to proceedings issued vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, dated 11.04.2014. In fact, the proceedings dated 11.04.2014 is a detailed report submitted by the 3[rd] respondent to the 2[nd] respondent. Basing on the said report, the 2[nd] respondent issued speaking orders vide Proc.Rc.No.2031/PS-I/2013, dated 03.09.2014 rejecting the request of the petitioner stating that it is not feasible for absorption into Grant-in-Aid post with effect from 2005. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The Additional Affidavit was filed by the petitioner stating that the 3[rd]respondent passed speaking orders on 19.11.2020 taking the ground contrary to their own office proceedings which were mentioned in the main affidavit stating that the request of the petitioner is not feasible. The contention of the 3[rd] respondent is that the 5[th] respondent institution is having only one sanctioned aided SGT post without referring to the earlier proceedings of his own office and the records of the Treasury Department.

6. Heard Mr.M.Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, for the respondents.

7. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 3[rd] respondent while submitting the online HRMS data to the District Treasury Officer in his proceedings vide Rc.No.SPL.1/B8/2017, dated 12.01.2018 himself submitted in Serial No.12, that the 5[th] respondent institution got sanctioned two SGT posts. He further submits that the CFMS (Comprehensive Financial Management System) online data attested by the 4[th] respondent herein also reflects clearly that there are two sanctioned posts and out of which one is vacant. In the records of Treasury Office, it clearly reflects in the cadre strength that the 5[th] respondent institution was sanctioned two posts. He further submits that the 3[rd] respondent want only issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, dated 30.03.2020, rejecting the proposal of the petitioner for absorption into the 5[th] respondent institution. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.

8. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the respondents have never reported that there are two posts in Koya Aided Elementary School, Lakkonda and even as per the resolution dated 11.06.2003 of the School Management Committee, taken decision to continue the petitioner (who is working from 27.01.2001 onwards) as Teacher in Grant-in-Aid post on permanent basis with effect from 11.06.2003 in place of Smt.M.Raja Kumari, SGT, Koya Aided Elementary School, Lakkonda, who was expired of 27.01.2001. The information furnished by the Correspondent that the second post was sanctioned in the year 2004 and said second post is filled with five men committee in 2004 is false and fabricated information. He further submits that there is only one Aided SGT post in which Smt.M.Rajakumari worked and she was demised on 27.01.2001 and vacancy for the post of SGT has arisen.

Accordingly, the 3[rd]respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.84/B7/2003, dated 14.11.2003 has issued permission to the Correspondent, Koya Aided Elementary School, Lakkonda as per the orders issued in Government Memo No.9378/Ps-3/2003-1, dated 18.09.2003, duly following the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994. As per the above permission orders, Sri D.Venkateswarlu was appointed as SGT in the Vacant Aided SGT post, due to demise of Smt.M.Rajakumari on 27.01.2001 and the same was approved by the 3[rd] respondent vide Proc.Rc.No.86-B7/2004, dated 03.09.2004. He further submits that the information furnished by the Correspondent that second post was sanctioned in the year 2004 is false. As per the detailed report of the 4[th] respondent, there is only one sanctioned post in Koya Aided Elementary School, Lakkonda and action has been taken for rectifying the same in Treasury Records. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition.

9. Perused the record.

9. Perused the record.

10. This Court, vide order, dated 23.10.2024, has passed the following docket order:

“On earlier occasion i.e., on 11.09.2024, this court has directed the 3[rd] respondent/DEO to appear in person before this Court today for giving explanation regarding written instructions issued to the petitioner.

Today, the 3[rd] respondent/DEO present before this Court. But, the 3[rd] respondent is not in a position to furnish the actual position of number of aided vacancies in the case. the 3[rd] respondent is not in a position to furnish the actual position of number of aided vacancies in the case.

Learned Government Pleader for School Education, Andhra Pradesh has furnished a copy of the letter issued by the learned Government Pleader for School Education, AP, High Court, Amaravathi to the Commissioner, School Education Department, Vijayawada, NTR District, dated 19.10.2024. In the said letter, learned Government Pleader for School Education has requested the Commissioner, School Education Department to furnish the number of aided vacancies in the case and requests time for filing report to that effect.

For filing report, post on 06.11.2024.

The appearance of the 3[rd] respondent is dispensed with. “

11. In view of the above foregoing discussion, it observed that, this Court observed that, learned Government Pleader for School Education has requested the Commissioner, School Education Department to furnish the number of aided vacancies in the case and requests time for filing report to that effect. Accordingly, this Court has granted time for filing report. Even though an ample opportunity was given to the respondents, they did not choose to file report with regard to furnish the details of aided vacancies in the case before this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, the respondents are failed to substantiate their contention for considering the case of the petitioner in a proper manner.

12. Further, to substantiate the claim of the petitioner, he filed budget information as material page at Page No.27, wherein, it shows that the vacancies of SGTs as ‘2’. In view of the circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the writ petition while declaring the action of the 3[rd] respondent in issuing impugned order vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, dated 30.03.2020, as illegal and arbitrary.

13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned Memo vide Rc.No.62-D3(B8)/2013, dated 30.03.2020 is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption into vacant aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the existing vacancy, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

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

__________________________

Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date : 31-12-2024 BMS