HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition Nos.20285, 32315 and 36319 of 2014 Date: 23-12-2014 Between A.V.Srilalitha and others … Petitioners and Govt. of AP, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary, School Edn. Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad; and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition Nos.20285, 32315 and 36319 of 2014 Common Order:
Common questions of fact and law would arise for consideration in these writ petitions. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common order.
2. The petitioners have been selected for the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) in the recruitment conducted in November, 2013 for teachers in Model Schools. They have been working in their allotted places. They submitted that as per the procedure indicated in the Notification, final selection list will be prepared and basing on the final selection list, candidates will be called for counselling for the purpose of allotment of respective places basing on their choice and in accordance with merit. The petitioners were accordingly asked to submit their web options choosing their respective places in accordance with their merit as indicated in the Notification. Their grievance is that deviating from the procedure which was indicated in the Notification, the respondents have allotted them the places according to the whims and fancies but not according to merit.
They submit that the respondents have blocked 10 places which are still available for the petitioners according to their choice but the respondents without following the procedure indicated, allotted the places not according to merit and web options. They say that they requested the respondents to allot the schools according to the merit list, but even though several vacancies are available to allot the petitioners the places of their respective choice, they were posted at far off places. It is said that the respondents in response to their request, promised the petitioners to allot the places as per the merit list and for the time being asked to continue in the allotted places. But, even after the academic year is completed, the respondents have not allotted the places to the petitioners as per the merit list and in accordance with the web options mentioned by the petitioners. Nextly, it is submitted that the petitioners came to know that the respondents are going to release 2nd merit list and contemplating to allot the schools as per the whims and fancies of the respondents denying them the choice to be posted in the places opted by duly considering their positions in the merit list. The petitioners made a representation to the respondents in this regard but no action has been taken on the said representation. Under these circumstances, they filed the present writ petitions seeking a direction in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in blocking certain vacancies/places and not filling the vacancies according to the merit list as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to allot the petitioners the places which they have opted for in the counselling in accordance with their merit before finalisation of the 2nd merit list.
3. While issuing notice before admission in W.P.No.20285 of 2014 on 06-8-2014, this Court granted interim direction that pending further orders, status quo existing as on that day with regard to finalisation of 2nd merit list shall be maintained.
4. The respondents filed vacate stay petition along with Counter Affidavit. They contended in the Counter Affidavit as follows:
The actual appointments would be restricted in consonance with the opening of Model Schools/Classes/ Sections. Accordingly, in respect of TGT posts, 411 teacher candidates were appointed in the Model Schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh during November/December, 2013 duly taking into consideration the web options furnished by the candidates. Therefore, according to the respondents, there is no blocking of any places. The version of the respondents is that the petitioners have been working in their respective places as per the options exercised by them through online web counselling. Nextly, it is submitted that the Scheme under which the petitioners were appointed is sponsored by Government of India with 75:25 sharing pattern by the Central Government and the State Government. Accordingly, it is said that Government of India sanctioned 355 Model Schools in the State of Andhra Pradesh, out of which 163 schools have been earmarked for Andhra Pradesh in the first phase. The remaining 192 schools out of 355 Model Schools sanctioned are remained in the State of Telangana. Out of 978 TGT candidates only 456 candidates were tentatively selected based on merit cum roster for appointment to the various categories of TGT posts and were allotted to the schools keeping in view the academic requirements. It is further submitted that in view of noncompletion of school buildings 13 schools were not opened. For the academic year 2014-15 Classes IX and XII were added. Therefore, additional teachers are required to fill the balance posts i.e. 522 excluding 45 candidates who failed to exercise web options. The version of the respondents is that the question of giving preference to the petitioners to the existing vacancies does not arise as they claimed.
The reason as per the respondents for not filling the present vacancies is due to non-starting of the schools and non-opening of all the classes i.e. VI to XII Classes in the year 2013-14, but not due to blocking of the posts intentionally. Nextly, it is submitted that the petitioners are not put to any loss by the action of the respondents but only gained advantage of getting posting during 2013-14 almost one year earlier to the present candidates and thereby the petitioners were benefitted both financially and in terms of seniority in their service. The version of the respondents is that appointment orders were issued to the petitioners as per their web options in the needy schools where the teachers are much required but no deviation has been made in the matter of allotting the respective places to the petitioners.
5. Thus the contention of the respondents is that there is no deviation in allotting the schools as per the web options indicated by the petitioners in respect of the schools which have already been opened and as there is no deviation, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. In the alternative, they contended that the petitioners as a matter of right cannot claim to be posted at any particular place.
6. In the Reply Affidavit, the petitioners contended as follows:
The petitioners are not allotted the respective places as per their preferences exercised and as per the merit cum roster in accordance with the policy available on the subject which has got statutory force. The available policy was violated by the respondents in letter and spirit in filling up the vacancies. The petitioners specifically illustrated certain postings to show that the final merit list has not been followed and also to show that no consideration was given to the petitioners as per the web options exercised by them. They stated in the Reply Affidavit that the instances mentioned by them are only few but the violations are many. They submitted that the vacant posts which are not filled up earlier for some reason or the other are now being filled up with the incumbents who are below in rank to the petitioners in the merit list and shown in the 2nd merit list ignoring the petitioners though they are on the top in the merit list. According to the petitioners, in all fairness the respondents ought to have considered the genuine grievance projected by the petitioners through their representation dated 27-6-2014 whereunder they requested to consider their grievance and to afford them a sliding chance before posting the incumbents in the 2nd merit list who are admittedly below in rank to the petitioners in implementation of the policy on the subject in letter and spirit. They made it clear that they are not seeking any transfer but only challenging the action of the respondents in not implementing the policy relating to posting framed by the Government which has got statutory force. They stated that the contention that the appointment orders were issued to the petitioners based on need is factually incorrect and the postings were made in clear disregard of the policy formulated by the Government.
7. I have heard Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu and Smt. M.S.V.S. Sudha Rani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for School Education for the respondents.
8. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ petitions does not relate to any transfer of the petitioners but it relates to allotting the schools as per the policy formulated by the Government which lays down that it shall be in accordance with the final merit list and order of priority as per the web options exercised by the petitioners. The respondents contended that certain schools/classes have not been commenced and therefore in the existing schools, the petitioners were given postings as per the merit list and as per the web options indicated by the petitioners. But, the petitioners could be able to demonstrate by adducing documentary evidence to show that available schools were not allotted to the petitioners as per their web options in accordance with the merit list. The policy formulated by the Government in this regard clearly indicates that the petitioners have to be allotted the schools basing on the merit list and also taking into consideration the web options exercised by them. In view of the policy formulated by the Government, the general principle that in transferable posts, the employee has to join at the place at which he is posted is not applicable in the instant case. Therefore, the petitioners can claim that the allotment of schools must be in accordance with the policy formulated by the Government. As the petitioners are able to demonstrate that the policy has been deviated, I see no substance in the contention put forth by the respondents that in the existing schools, the petitioners were allotted the respective places in accordance with the merit list and their choice. Moreover, if the petitioners are posted to the schools as per the merit list and in accordance with the choice exercised by them, no loss would be caused to the candidates in the 2nd merit list. I therefore see absolutely no reason to deny the petitioners their option to be appointed in the schools as per the policy formulated by the Government.
9. Under these circumstances, the respondents can fill up the vacancies in all the schools but they are directed to allot the places to the candidates in both the merit lists in accordance with their merit and also basing on the choice exercised by them. Accordingly, the interim order dated 06-8-2014 which was granted in W.P.No.20285 of 2014 is vacated but the respondents are directed to follow the merit list as well as the web options exercised by the candidates in both the merit lists and issue fresh posting orders strictly in accordance with the merit. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. No costs.
R.KANTHA RAO, J.
23rd December, 2014. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO Writ Petition Nos.20285, 32315 and 36319 of 2014 (Common Order) 23rd December, 2014. (Ak)