APHC010217752013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 5025/2013 Between: Nagendra Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANGISETTY RAJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO: 5032/2013 Between: V. Kalpana ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GANGISETTY RAJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION -2- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 WRIT PETITION NO: 8054/2013 Between: V. Mary Louisa ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By The Principal and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K N VIJAYA LAXMI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: -3- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION Nos. 5025, 5032 AND 8054 OF 2013 COMMON ORDER: 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are seeking a direction to treat them as aided Secondary Grade Teachers with effect from the date of their initial selection. The proceedings approving the appointment of the petitioners as Secondary Grade Teachers are sought to be declared illegal, and a consequential direction is sought to treat them as aided Secondary Grade Teachers from the date of their initial appointment. 2. The petitioner in W.P.No.5025 of 2013 is seeking a declaration that his appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher, with effect from 29.08.2012, is illegal and seeks a consequential direction to treat his date of appointment as 22.08.2004, i.e., the day on which the staff selection committee passed the resolution appointing the petitioner. 3. The petitioner in W.P.No.5032 of 2013 is seeking a declaration that his appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher, with -4- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 effect from 25.08.2012, is illegal and seeks a consequential direction to treat his date of appointment as 19.09.2004, i.e., the day on which the staff selection committee passed the resolution appointing the petitioner. 4. The petitioner in W.P.No.8054 of 2013 is seeking a declaration approving his appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher with effect from 25.08.2012 as illegal and seeks a consequential direction to treat his date of appointment as 19.09.2004 i.e., the day on which the staff selection committee passed the resolution appointing the petitioner. 5. All the petitioners are working in the 5th respondent school. The 5th respondent school was established in the year 1954 as an upper primary school, was admitted to grant-in-aid in the same year and was upgraded as a high school in the year 1975. The Government has taken a decision to fill up the vacancies in the aided schools and issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002. The 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 30.05.2003, permitting the aided schools throughout the State to fill up the vacancies. The 5th respondent had three -5- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 posts of SGPT and one post of SGT vacant as of the year 2002. 6. In order to fill up the said vacancies, the 5th respondent management sent proposals to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent accorded its permission to fill up the aided vacancies on 20.09.2003. The 5th respondent issued a paper publication on 01.11.2003 and notified the said posts. The petitioners applied for the posts, and the staff selection committee issued proceedings appointing the petitioners. The staff selection committee conducted the selection process and orders of appointment were issued. 7. The petitioner in W.P. No. 8054 of 2013 was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher on 19.09.2004. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in primary school on 22.08.2004. The petitioner in W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 was appointed as a Telugu Pandit Grade-II on 19.09.2004. For the selection of the petitioners, the 5th respondent sent proposals for approval of appointments. The 5th respondent also sent reminders seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioners. -6- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 8. It is submitted that Rule 12 (8) of the A.P. Education Rules would have to be deployed in the present facts and circumstances as the Rule provides for deemed approval if no approval is granted within two months from the date of submission of the proposal for approval. 9. While things stood thus, the 1st respondent imposed a ban on recruitment and issued a Memo dated 20.10.2004 with retrospective effect. The 5th respondent challenged the said memo by filing W.P. No.14588 of 2004. This Court directed the 4th respondent to pass necessary orders for approving the appointment vide orders dated 07.07.2005. The 5th respondent also filed a contempt case for the non- implementation of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.14588 of 2004. The writ appeal was preferred by the State and the contempt was also pending consideration. During the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings, the Government has initiated the rationalization process in accordance with G.O.Ms. No.103, dated 05.08.2005. 10. The 5th respondent challenged the process of rationalizing staff through the filing of Writ Petition Nos.25524 of 2005 and -7- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 25527 of 2005. The writ petitions were posted along with writ appeals preferred by the State. The writ appeals by the State were dismissed and the writ petitions filed by the private Managements were allowed on 29.12.2006. 11. The State preferred SLP (Special Leave Petition) No. 9541 of 2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere in the matter. It is submitted that similarly situated employees filed W.P. No.16053 of 2004 and this Court allowed the writ petition on 02.07.2008. The writ appeal preferred by the State was dismissed, and 41 similarly situated employees were extended the benefit of having their cases considered as appointed against the aided vacancy from the date of their initial appointment. 12. It is submitted that the 5th respondent filed W.P.No.1369 of 2010. This Court, vide order 25.08.2010, directed the 1st respondent to dispose of the request for approval of the selection of four teaching posts in accordance with the law and in accordance with the directions of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been following up the matter regularly, seeking to consider the -8- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 date of regularization into the aided vacancy from the date of their initial appointment. 13. The respondents, after having made the petitioners wage a legal battle for approving their appointments, finally issued proceedings in the year 2012. The Government has also withdrawn the ban imposed by it and issued G.O.Ms. No.40. It is also submitted that the petitioners were working since the year 2004 when they were initially appointed and the staff selection committee approved their appointment. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondents cannot ignore the date of the petitioners' initial appointment by the staff selection committee. The staff selection committee undertook the selection process, and the nominee of the 4th respondent was also a member of the committee. Approval from the State was also sought soon after the petitioners were selected. As per Rule 12(8) of the A.P. Education Rules, the State is duty-bound to express its willingness and approval within two months from the date of receipt of the proposals for approval. -9- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 15. In the present set of facts and circumstances, the State has slept over the proposals submitted by the 5th respondent and caused an inordinate delay. The State is now attempting to rely on the ban memo to deny the orders of appointment in pursuance of the proceedings passed by the Staff Selection Committee. 16. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the approval for the selection of the petitioners was issued by the competent authority only after the proceedings in S.L.P. No. 9541 of 2007 had attained finality. It is also submitted that on account of the ban on recruitment, the cases of the petitioners for approving their appointment during the ban period was not feasible. 17. It is submitted in the counter that the 5th respondent school had, after a lapse of seven months from the date permitting the 5th respondent to fill up the vacancies, issued proceedings requesting the nomination of an Officer from the office of the 4th respondent. -10- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 18. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Miss.A.Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu and others1 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the teachers are not workmen and that the teachers do not come under the definition of Sections 2 (j) and 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. As such, there cannot be apprenticeship for them. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners also relies on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad rendered in the matter of Netaji Memorial Educational Society, Vijayawada, Krishna District v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others2. This Court dealt with the issue of the batch of writ petitions filed by the school management to declare the ban memo as illegal and held that the ban memo issued by the State was violative of 1 AIR 1988 SC 1700 2 2013(5) ALD 380 -11- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 Article 14, 21-A and 45 of the Constitution of India and allowed the writ petitions. 21. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the appointments have to be made in accordance with Rule 12(8) of the A.P. Education Rules and any appointment made by the school for the aided post ought to be only after the approval of the competent authority. It is submitted that the 4th respondent had issued the orders of appointment as if they were the ultimate authority. 22. It submitted that these appointments were made in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No.75, dated 23.09.2002. However, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 12.11.2002 and kept G.O.Ms.No.75 in abeyance. 23. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents relies on Rule 3 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2005 (Act No. 37 of 2005). Rule 3. Counting of Service for fixation of Pay, Automatic Advancement Scheme, Career Advancement Scheme and Pension: -12- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 Notwithstanding anything contained in any order of the Government or any Judgment of any Court or Tribunal, every employee of a Private Aided Educational Institution, shall, from the date of approval of his appointment in an aided post, be eligible to count the service rendered after such date of approval, for fixation of pay in the said post and Automatic Advancement Scheme, Career Advancement Scheme. Pension made applicable or extended to such employee from time to time. 24. The learned Government Pleader for the respondents also relies on Rule 2 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Aided Educational Institutions Employees (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2005 (Act No.9 of 2000). 2. Eligible service for Government Schemes and Pension: Every employee of Private Aided Educational Institution shall, from the date of approval of his appointment in a post duly admitted to grant-in-aid be eligible to count his service rendered after such date of approval for fixation of his pay and also his pension under the schemes formulated, made applicable or extended to the employees of private Aided Institutions from time to time. 25. The petitioners were initially appointed in an existing vacancy in the year 2004. The petitioners underwent the selection process. The selection committee approved the petitioners' selection, and the Deputy Educational Officer is a member of the Selection Committee. The District Education Officer, after -13- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 having found the necessity for approving the appointments of the petitioners, forwarded his recommendation for the approval of the competent authority. 26. The reasons cited for rejecting the approval of the petitioners' appointments are not legally valid. Rule 12(6) of the A.P. Education Act would not apply to the 4th respondent. The amendment to the AP Educational Act was proposed in 2008, and it cannot be applied to the petitioners' appointment orders, which were issued in 2003. The third objection pertained to recruitment during the ban, and the matter was pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in an SLP. No.9541 of 2007 is concerned, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 06.09.2011. 27. The writ petition filed by the 5th respondent Management seeking a direction to approve the recommendations of the petitioners was considered on its merits by this Court in W.P.No.14588 of 2004, vide order dated 07.07.2005. This Court issued a positive direction in W.P. No. 14588 of 2004 on 07.07.2005, directing the 4th respondent to pass orders approving the appointments already made in accordance with -14- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 the law, without reference to the ban imposed by the Government on 20.10.2004. It was further directed that the entire exercise should be completed within six weeks. The said order has attained finality. 28. Considering the issue in all aspects, the respondents ought to have considered the date 07.07.2005 as the date of approval of the appointment of the petitioners. However, the respondents have not referred to the date 07.07.2005 in their proceedings dated 29.08.2012 issued in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No.5025 of 2012 and in the proceedings dated 25.08.2012 issued in favour of the petitioners in W.P. No.5032 of 2012 and 8054 of 2012 as the date from which the petitioners services are deemed approved. In view of the same, the claim of the petitioners for considering their dates of approval as 22.08.2004 and 19.09.2004 cannot be considered. 29. The date of approval of the petitioners' appointment has to be considered as 07.07.2005, when there was a positive direction from this Court. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are hereby set aside and the date of appointment of the petitioners -15- W.P. No. 5025 of 2013 W.P. No. 5032 of 2013 W.P. No.8054 of 2013 shall be considered as 07.07.2005. The respondents are further directed to release all service benefits due payable to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 30. With these observations, these writ petitions are allowed in part. No costs. 31. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 02.04.2025 BV