IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE T Oft O ■0 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K. MANMADHA WRIT PETITION NO: 7100 OF 2021 Between: 1. D.Madhu Sudhana, S/o. D.Subba Rao, Aged 52 years, C... S.G.Teacher, O/o. Aided Elementary School, Yegulavada, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Occ; ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. The Manager, Aided Elementary School, Yegulavada, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 3'^'^ respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.3387/B2/2018, dated 9.2.2021 rejecting the proposals of the 4th respondent in filling up of vacant aided post with the petitioner contrary to the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in WP.No. 12821 of 2002 dated 25.09.2018 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the 3'^ respondent to approve the petitioner's appointment and pay salaries from the date of appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade School Teacher in the 4*'" respondent school. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 . Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim direction directing the 31.d respondent to immediately reconsider the issue for approving the appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade School Teacher in the 4^^ respondent school, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010124842021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3310] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 7100/2021 Between: ...PETITIONER D.madhu Sudhana, AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III The Court made the following Order: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “ to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.3387/B2/2018, dated 9.2.2021 rejecting the proposals of the 4"' respondent in filling up of vacant aided post with the petitioner contrary to the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.12821 of 2002 dated 25.09.2018 as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the same and further direct the respondent to approve the petitioners appointment and pay salaries from the date of appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade School Teacher in the 4"’ respondent school ” 2 Brief facts of the case are that the 4'^ respondent school is a grant-in-aid school and it requested the competent authority to fill up aided secondary grade teacher post and the 3''^ respondent granted permission vide proceedings dated 29.11.1996, as per the rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. The 4**^ respondent school issued an advertisement in newspaper on 03.12.1996 inviting applications from qualified teachers. The petitioner 2. 1 applied for the said post and got appointed vide Rc.No.Spl.4/97, dated 10.03.1997. While so, the 3'^'^ respondent has raised a contention that in the interview committee, there was no nominee of the District Educational Officer and therefore entire selection is vitiated and rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher. In this context, one Prasada Rao and others filed WP.No.27004 of 2003 before this Court and the same was disposed on 12.06.2007, directing the 3'^'^ respondent to examine the entire issue in the light of the contentions of the schools therein though it has sent the proposals the action was not taken by the 3'"'^ respondent. The I petitioner also filed W.P.No. 12821 of 2002 challenging the orders of the 3 respondent vide Rc.No.26/A4/94, dated 20.05.2002 and the same was rd disposed off on 25.09.2018 taking into considering the judgment in W.P.No.27004 of 2003, dated 12.06.2007. The 3'^'^ respondent has passed the impugned order vide Rc.No.3387/B2/2018, dated 09.02.2021 stating that the conduct of selection process without a departmental nominee and no submitted for conducting selection process without explanation was departmental nominee and hence rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and mainly contended that the proposals for selection of the Petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4‘^ respondent school considered afresh by the 3'^’^ respondent as per the orders of this Court was dated 25.09.2018 passed in W.P.No. 12821 of 2002 and rejected the said respondent school violated the rule 13 (3) of proposals as the 4 G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 according to which the quorum for the Staff Selection Committee meetings shall be four of which the presence of District Educational Officer’s nominee is compulsory. It is further contended pursuant to the orders dated 25.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.12821 of 2002 filed by the petitioner, the 3'^^ respondent has addressed the 2 respondent vide letter dated 21.02.2019 for issuance of necessary instructions regarding implementation of the Court orders. Subsequently, the 2 respondent has issued instructions vide proceedings dated 28.08.2019 to the 3'^'^ respondent to pass appropriate orders. The 3^^ respondent again addressed to the 2"'^ respondent vide letter dated 06.01.2020 raising certain observation on the judgment dated 25.09.2018 in W.P.No.12821 of 2002. that nd nd Then the 2"^^ respondent called for certain information of the case of the petitioner vide Memo dated 07.04.2020 from the respondent and the 3'"^ respondent has submitted the information vide letter dated 06.07.2020 to the 2'^^ respondent. Finally, the 3'^'^ respondent has issued speaking orders to the petitioner vide proceedings dated 09.02.2021. It was further contended that the 4*^ respondent sent a letter to the respondent to participate I recruitment vide Letter Rc.No.Spl.4/97, dated 09.03.1997 and handed the said letter in the 3'"^ respondent office. On the same day itself, the Written Test and Oral Test was conducted by the 4*^ respondent and issued appointment order to the petitioner as Teacher on the next day i.e., 10.03.1997. It clearly shows that the 4‘^ respondent did not give any scope to the 3'^'^ respondent to depute or to take a decision in deputation of nominee on behalf of the 3''^ respondent. Further, the 4‘^ respondent failed to consult with the 3"'^ respondent to fix the selection process, thereby contravened the rule 12(5) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. in over 4. The rejoinder filed by the petitioner mainly contending that the appointment is deemed to be approved if the approval is not granted within three months from the date of receipt of proposals and that selection will not vitiate due to the absence of the departmental nominee when the respondent fail to participate in the selection process. It is further contended that as 5 ^ already stated in the proceedings vide Rc.No.4/97, dated 20.02.1997 of the 4*'^ respondent requesting to nominate its nominee was acknowledged by the Mandal Educational Officer on 20.02.1997 itself and the department failed to depute its nominee to the selection scheduled on 09.03.1997. Heard Mr.Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for 3ervices-lll, for the 5. respondents. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petition, submits that, the 4*^ respondent has requested the 3'^'^ respondent to send a departmental nominee vide letter dated 20.02.1997 and the Mandal Educational Officer vide letter dated 6. 16.03.1997 informed the competent authority for approval of the appointment. Though the 4'^ respondent has sent the proposals on 15.03.1997, no orders were passed till 2002 and as held that in the light of the permission granted on 29.11.1996, the 4‘^ respondent has proceeded with the appointment and the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 is liable to be set aside. He further submits that the minutes of the selection committee under acknowledgment on 09.03.1997 and proposals of the management dated 15.03.1997 from the Mandal Educational Officer, the respondents over the same till 20.05.2002 and rejected approval referring to a reminder on the ground that they have informed not to fill up the vacancy on 20.03.2001. He further submits that the 6 permission was granted on 29.11.1996 and the recruitment was conducted on 09.03.1997 and the rejection on the ground that they instructed not to fill up vide letter dated 20.03.2001 i.e., after four years after recruitment is highly incongruous. He further submits that the respondents in order to rebut the communication of the 4*'^ respondent’s proposals in Rc.No.4/97, dated 20.02.1997 for approval of selection committee is trying to rely on the acknowledgment dated 09.03.1997 issued by the 3'^^ respondent as proof of delay in communicating the proposals for nominating the member in the selection committee. But the proposals for appointment/nominatio n of departmental member to the selection committee was submitted vide letter No.4/97, dated 20.02.1997 through the Mandal Educational Officer on 20.02.1997 under acknowledgment and the respondent admitted the receipt of proposals on 15.03.1997 itself. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 7. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while th reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, the 4 respondent submitted the proposal through the MEO, Kurupam vide letter dated 15.03.1997 which was not reached to the competent authority till May, 2002 and the 4**^ respondent did not pursue the matter. He further submits that, as per rule 8 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, the Educational Agency shall inform the competent authority within one month of the selection and the \ competent authority shall grant approval unless the selection has been in violation of these rules. But the 4'^ respondent did not submit the proposals to the 3'^'^ respondent within one month of the selection of the petitioner. He further submits that the respondent submitted the proposals to the MEO, Kurupam who is not a competent authority. After receipt of the proposals, the 3'^'^ respondent has rejected the proposal vide proceedings dated 20.05.2002. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the 3'^'^ respondent in rejection of approval of the selection of the petitioner on violation of procedure by the 4*^ respondent. He further submits that the 4''' respondent should have issued appointment orders to the petitioner after getting approval of the selection of the petitioner from the 3'^^ respondent as per the rule 12(8) and 12(9) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994. But the 4*' respondent issued appointment orders on the next day of the Written test/oral test i.e. 10.03.1997 and the petitioner joined on duty as Teacher on 14.03.1997. Only after joining of the petitioner, the 4'^ respondent sent proposal to the 3'^^ ♦ respondent for approval of the appointment of the petitioner on 15.03.1997., thereby contravened the Rule 12(8) and 12(9) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. on 8. Perused the record. 8 On a perusal of the order of this Court dated 25.09.2018 passed 9. in W.P.No.12821 of 2002, this Court observed as follows: “It is further contended by the petitioner that the 4‘^ respondent vide its letter dated 20.02.1997 white requesting the competent authority to grant permission to fill up Aided Secondary Grade Teacher Post also requested to send a departmental nominee to oversee the selections conducted by the respondent management and the respondent management has clearly informed that the interviews are likely to be conducted on 09.03.1997. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when similar issue fell for consideration of this Court in W.P.No.27004 of 2003 dated 12.06.2007 as to whether the selections conducted by the management in the absence of departmental nominee are vitiated or not, this Court has considered the issue in the following manner: “While the 3 respondent, in the impugned order dated 16.06.2003, had stated that Rule 12(5), which require the nominee of the District Educational Officer to be part of the Selection Committee, was not complied with and that respondents 4 to 7- schools had not included the representative of the District Educational Officer as a nominee in the Selection Committee, both the petitioners and respondents, 4 to 7 would submit that despite a specific request being made to send his nominee, the 3nt respondent had failed to do so. The question as to whether respondents 4 to 7 had, in fact, requested the 3 respondent to send his nominee to participate in the selection process and as to whether the 3rd respondent had failed to comply with such a request are also matters which the 3rd respondent is required to examine. Rule 13(1), of the rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, prescribes the composition of the staff selection committee. Rule 13(3) provides that the quorum for the staff selection committee shall be four. Thus, even in the absence of the nominee of the District Educational Officer, as required under Rule 13(1)(e) there could still be a quorum for the staff selection committee. Further Rule 12(5), while requiring aided schools to have a nominee of the District Educational Officer in the staff selection committee and for the educational agency to fix the selection process in consultation with the District Educational Officer or his nominee and to afford the D.E.O's nominee reasonable opportunity of being present, also provides that the selection shall not be vitiated only on the ground of the absence of the D.E.O's nominee if the Educational agency has offered reasonable explanation. Failure on the part of the 3rd respondent to depute his nominee to participate in the selection process, despite a specific request by respondents 4 to 7 schools to do so, cannot vitiate the selection process nor can the 3rd 9 respondent take advantage of his own default to contend that Rule 12(5), of the Rules notified under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 has been violated. On the question of absence of the nominee of the D.E.O. in the selection process, when respondents 4 to 7 schools selected the petitioners, the 3rd respondent shall, in accordance with Rule 12(5), examine whether respondents 4 to 7 schools have offered a reasonable explanation in this regard" It has been further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in W.P.No.16053 of 2004 dated 02.07.2008, the issue fell for consideration before this Court is that if approval is not granted within three months as per the rules, it has to be deemed to have been approved and the very same principle was laid down in the above said case. Admittedly, in the instant case, proposals were submitted by the 4th respondent on 15.03.1997 and the respondents have not passed any orders till 2002. Therefore, for the above said reasons, it should be deemed that the appointment of the petitioner has been approved. Therefore, the competent authority should consider the case of petitioner afresh by duly taking into account the fact that the petitioner was appointed way back in March, 1997 in pursuance to the permission granted by the competent authority vide its letter dated 29.11.1996 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ” As seen from the material on record, this Court observed that, 10. admittedly, the petitioner was selected as Secondary Grade Teacher vide Rc.No.Spl.4/97, dated 10.03.1997. The management submitted the proposals for approval of appointment in respect of the said individual to the competent authority i.e., DEO, Vizianagaram vide Lr.Rc.No.Spl.4/97, dated 15.03.1997. The respondents’ contention is that the said letter dated 15.03.1997 did not reach the competent authority till May, 2002 and hence, the 4‘^ respondent did not pursue the matter. After receiving the said proposal, the 3^'^ respondent has rejected the proposal vide proceedings dated 20.05.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12821 of 2002 and this Court has 10 disposed of the said writ petition, directing the competent authority to consider H the case of the petitioner afresh duly taking petitioner was appointed into account the fact that the way back in March, 1997 in pursuance to the permission granted by the competent authority vide its letter dated 29.11.1996 a period of four (04) weeks from the date respondents rejecting the petitioner’s order of this Court passed in considering the observations made by this proper on the part of the respondents. and pass appropriate orders within of receipt of copy of order. However, the case without properly appreciating the W.P.No.12821 of 2002 and without Court, which is not 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of both the iearned oounseis, this Court is of the opinion that, although on an earlier occasion this Coun directed respondents to consider the petitioner's case afresh, the respondents have once again adopted the same reason and rejected the petitioner's case, which is bad in law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 09.02.2021 on the 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The i proceedings vide Rc.No.3387/B2/2018, respondent is hereby set aside. Further, 3'’'^ respondent with a direction to duly taking into account the fact that the - impugned dated 09.02.2021 issued by the 3^^^ the matter is remanded back to the consider the case of the petitioner afresh petitioner was appointed way back i by in 11 permission granted by the competent .11.1996 and pass appropriate orders within a copy of this order. No to the March, 1997 in pursuance authority vide its letter dated 29 period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a costs. miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall 13. As a sequel stand closed. Sd/- B PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGI^ SECTION OFFICER AR //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Secretary, Education Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, ■ Scretariat. Amaravathi, Guntur Distnct. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.r. 3. The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram Vizianagaram District 4. The Manager, Aided Elementary School, Yegulavada, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 5. OneCCto Sri 6. Two CCS to GP for Services 111 7. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.7100 of 2021 ww 1 S MAR m ar M Current Section ^ disposing the WITHOUT COSTS WP