HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1997 OF 2013 07-07-2014 BETWEEN The Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and three others …Appellants And Smt. S. Syamala Kumari and another …..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT APPEAL No. 1997 OF 2013
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy)
This appeal provides an instance of the irresponsible officials in the Department of Education harassing not only the managements of the private educational institutions but also the individual teachers. It also reflects the typical exhibition of authoritarianism.
The 2nd respondent is an educational institution admitted to grant-in-aid and the 1st respondent was appointed as a Grade-I Hindi Pandit in that institution on 12-11-1996, against an unaided vacancy. The post of Grade-II Hindi Pandit in that institution, which was admitted to grant-in-aid, was held by one Smt. T. Chandra Prabha. The post became vacant on account of the incumbent taking voluntary retirement. Obviously, because relatively better security of service exists in respect of aided vacancies, the 1st respondent submitted an application with a prayer to absorb her against the Grade-II Hindi Pandit which is in fact inferior to the one, held by her. The 2nd respondent reacted positively on the application and submitted proposals to the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, the 3rd appellant, for approval. Through his order dated 01-01-2005, the 3rd appellant rejected the proposal on the ground that the prescribed procedure was not followed. The view taken by the 3rd appellant was approved by the Director of School Education, the 2nd appellant, through order dated 30-05-2005.
The 1st respondent approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6997 of 2006. It was pleaded that her selection against the post of Grade-I Hindi Pandit was after the process of selection and her appointment was also approved by the competent authority. She stated that in the order of appointment itself, it was mentioned that she will be entitled to be paid the salary from grant-in-aid, after she is absorbed against an aided vacancy, and that there was no basis for the impugned proceedings.
The writ petition was opposed by the appellants herein, by filing a counter affidavit. According to them, the prescribed procedure was not followed. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition allowed it through the order under appeal. Hence, the writ appeal.
Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellants and Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.
With a view to help the private educational institutions, particularly schools to sustain themselves, the Government introduced the scheme of grant-in-aid. Strict procedure is prescribed either for admitting of an institution into grant-in-aid or to approve the appointment or absorption of the incumbent against an aided vacancy. In such institutions, appointments even against unaided vacancies are required to be made in accordance with the procedure prescribed and subject to approval.
The 1st respondent was appointed as Grade-I Hindi Pandit on 12-11-1996 against an unaided vacancy. The appointment was approved by the competent authority on finding that it was made in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
The vacancy in Grade-II Hindi Pandit arose on account of the incumbent by name Chandra Prabha taking voluntary retirement. By that time, the 1st respondent was already working in a superior post viz., Grade-I though unaided. It is almost a known practice in aided institutions to absorb the incumbents working against unaided vacancies against aided vacancies as and when the situation arises. Necessity to undertake the selection process afresh is obviated in such cases. Once the competent authority is satisfied that the appointment of incumbent against unaided vacancy was in accordance with the procedure prescribed and was approved, the absorption is permitted as a matter of course. In the instant case, the 3rd appellant took a hyper-technical view just by saying that the absorption of the 1st respondent was not in accordance with the rules. The 2nd appellant did nothing more than blindly repeating the same in his order dated 30-05-2005.
The learned single Judge found fault with the approach adopted by appellant Nos.2 and 3. As long as it is not in dispute that the 1st respondent was selected and appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure and her appointment was also approved by the competent authority, there was no basis for appellant Nos.2 and 3 in objecting to her absorption against the aided vacancy. But for the arbitrary, high handed and irresponsible attitude exhibited by appellant Nos.2 and 3, the 1st respondent would have got the benefit by this time. We do not find any basis to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed by imposing costs of Rs.10,000/-. We, however, direct that in case the relief granted in the writ petition is extended to the 1st respondent within two months from today, the direction as to the costs shall stand deleted.
The miscellaneous petitions pending in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 07-07-2014 ks