IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) BETWEEN WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.29535 of 2013 Katumala Abel Simpson Adrusta Rao.
AND ... PETITIONER Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G. KRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner, who was appointed as a Correspondent of Whittekar Girls’ High School & Elementary School, complains of non-consideration and non-approval of his correspondentship by the District Educational Officer, respondent No.4 herein. Petitioner states in the affidavit in that the Executive Council of Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church in its meeting dated 11.07.2013 appointed the petitioner as correspondent of the school for a period of four years from 15.07.2013 to 31.07.2017 in the place of Rev. P. David Raju whose term expired by 31.05.2013. Respondent No.4, who is the competent authority in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, is required to issue a certificate approving the correspondentship of the person after the management sends its proposals therefor and since the petitioner’s name is already proposed for correspondentship by the resolution of the executive council, the petitioner seeks a direction for approval of his name as correspondent.
3. Respondent No.4 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that one P. David Raju was the correspondent, who was nominated by previous outgoing correspondent and on account of instructions of the Collector, an enquiry was made by the Deputy District Educational Officer on the complaints received against the approval of the correspondentship and submitted a report. It is further stated that the staff of the school submitted a letter to the Collector and requested him to release the salaries, which were withheld for want of correspondent’s approval. Hence, keeping in view the hardship of the teachers, as per the instructions of the Collector, the Deputy District Educational Officer was appointed as a Special Officer vide District Educational Officer’s proceedings dated 22.08.2012 to ensure that the salaries of the staff are released. It is, however, stated that one M. John Moses filed WP.No.28883 of 2012 challenging the Special Officer’s appointment by the District Educational Officer and this Court in WPMP.No.36872 of 2012 in WP.No.28883 of 2012 dated 14.09.2012 passed the following order:
“Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education takes notice for the respondents and seeks time for filing counter affidavit. Post on 15.10.2012.
A perusal of the impugned order does not show that any notice was issued by the competent authority to petitioner No.1 before appointing respondent No.5 as special officer to the School. Hence, impugned order dated 31.07.2012 of Respondent No.4 is suspended, pending further orders.”
4. Counter affidavit further states that in pursuance of the said interim order the appointment of Special Officer was withdrawn and thereafter, the management submitted proposal relating to petitioner as the term of the said P. David Raju expired by 31.05.2013. However, counter affidavit further states that in view of the interim order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, action could not be taken and the management was requested to submit proposal through the Inspecting Officer after disposal of the above writ petition.
5. The said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous on 10.11.2014. In view of that, therefore, there is now no impediment for respondent No.4 to approve the correspondent. However, as stated by respondent No.4 in para 13 of the counter affidavit, the proposal with respect to petitioner is required to be submitted afresh through the Inspecting Officer.
Petitioner is, therefore, at liberty to ensure that the management sends a fresh proposal through the Inspecting Officer to respondent No.4 relating to approval of petitioner’s correspondentship. As and when respondent No.4 receives such proposal, he shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon without further loss of time.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 12, 2014 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 14.11.2014. (B/o) DSK