IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THIS THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23504 of 2004 Between: C.Sithalakshmi . PETITIONER And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others . RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT PETITION No.23504 of 2004
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.32, Education, dated 25.01.1999 confirming the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.04.1997 instead of 01.08.1994 and further proceedings of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.2469/C3/1994-95, dated 24.03.1996 as well as action of respondents 3 & 4 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the instructions of the 2nd respondent besides being violative of articles 14, 16, 21 and 309 of the Constitution of India and to direct the 2nd respondent to regularize the services of the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. from 16.06.1986 in the aided post with all consequential and monetary benefits.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that she joined as a Telugu Pandit Grade-II on 16.06.1986 in the 4th respondent school and has been discharging the duties as such. In April 1988, the petitioner passed M.A.Telugu, acquired B.Ed degree and passed Telugu Pandit Examination in the month of January 1992. In the year 1991-92 the 4th respondent Upper Primary School was admitted to grant-in-aid. Thereafter, a Three-Member Committee at District Level recommended the name of the petitioner for regularization of her services as Telugu Pandit Gr.II from the date of her initial appointment to the post in grant- in-aid. The Three-Member Committee submitted a report to approve the appointment of the petitioner in relaxation of rules as per G.O.Ms.No.782, dated 09.09.1982. The 4th respondent requested the 2nd respondent to approve the absorption of the petitioner into grant-in- aid post. The Government have issued G.O.Ms.No.365 Education dated 10.11.1994, according to which, post of the petitioner was converted into grant-in-aid post. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 27.06.1995 approved the absorption of the petitioner and directed the 3rd respondent to submit his compliance report within 15 days.
According to the petitioner, G.O.Ms.No.1 Education, dated 01.01.1994 superseded G.O.Ms.No.524 Education, dated 20.12.1988. It is submitted by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent in case of one Smt.M.Vijayalakshmi directed the Secretary of Arya Girls High School at Warangal to regularize her services in the cadre of Hindi Pandit Gr.II as per G.O.Ms.No.782 dated 09.10.1982 by exempting her from passing Hindi Pandit qualification. But in the case of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent rejected to consider her case on the ground that she had not acquired qualification at the time of appointment under G.O.Ms.No.524 Education, dated 20.12.1988, which is highly objectionable and discriminative. The version of the petitioner is that as per G.O.Ms.No.524 Education dated 20.12.1988 one should acquire the required qualification at the time of appointment as Telugu Pandit Gr.II which is prospective in nature. However, the petitioner was appointed prior to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.524 Education dated 20.12.1988 and the 3rd respondent as well as the Three-Member Committee recommended her name for regularization.
It is further submitted by the petitioner that she has been on deputation as Telugu Pandit Gr.II at S.R.R.Thota School, Karimabad of Warangal District in the existing clear vacancy, and since 1997 onwards no allowances were being paid to her even though the Government have issued a G.O. in her favour to the effect that her services have to be regularized from the date on which her post was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 01.08.1994. Her salary in grant-in-aid was paid only from 01.04.1996 instead of 01.08.1994. However, the proceedings were issued in G.O.Ms.No.32 Education dated 25.01.1999 regularizing her services from 01.04.1997 instead of 01.08.1994. Therefore, she questioned the above said proceedings in the present writ petition.
The issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3093/2004, delivered on 30.09.2004, which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2290/2005, dated 27.08.2013, following the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.202/2012, dated 22.08.2013.
In W.P.No.3093/2004, learned single Judge of this Court, while dealing with the identical case, held as under:
“absorption of the petitioner in the aided post shall be treated as not on apprenticeship and he shall be paid the salary attached to the post in which he was absorbed.”
under:
In W.A.No.202/2012, the Division Bench of this court held as “…Under clause 6, the payment procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 16.08.2001 is to be applied only for those persons who were appointed directly in the vacant posts as per the recruitment procedure. No such condition was prescribed under clause 7 for those who were already working in unaided posts and who were absorbed against the aided posts. It is also pertinent to note that sub-rule (4-a) of Rule-12 of the Rules of 1993, which clearly indicates that it has application to only those who are freshly selected and appointed. This Rule has no application to the teacher, such as the 1st respondent herein who was already working in an unaided post from 1992. The apprenticeship is meant only for freshers who have no experience and such procedure which is applicable to the freshers cannot be made applicable to the 1st respondent herein, who is in service from 1992. As such, Rule (4-a) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1999 has no application to the 1st respondent herein. The Commissioner and Director of School Education without considering the issue on proper perspective, issued proceedings dated 24.09.2002 and equated the persons covered by clause 7 to those covered by clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002 and made applicable to them the payment procedure prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 16.08.2001 to the persons who are already in service. The Government also issued memo dated 19.12.2002 without properly understanding the issue. It is also found that such interpretation does not find place in Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002.”
The judgment in W.A.No.202/2012 was also followed by another Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.273/2004 taking a consistent view that the services of the respondents therein have to be regularized from the date on which the posts of the respondents were admitted to grant-in-aid and the salaries shall be paid at the scale of pay attached to the said posts to which the respondents were absorbed.
In view of the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments, the petitioner in the present writ petition is entitled for regularization of her services in grant-in-aid post with effect from 01.08.1994, the date on which her post was admitted to grant-in-aid. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is directed to regularize the services of the petitioner from 01.08.1994 in grant-in-aid post with all consequential and monetary benefits.
The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.
R.KANTHA RAO,J Date: 24.04.2014 Dsr