IN THE HIGH COURT OF anDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON’BLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 6885. 13904 OF 2021 WP. No.6885 of 2021: Between: M.Venkata Naidu, S/o. Satyam Naidu, Aged 51 years, Occ- S.G.Teacher, O/o. Dhulikuppa Village, Udayapuram (Po), Mondemkhallu (So), Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh ...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, Dulikuppa Village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Mandal Educational Officer, Kuruppam Mandal, Vizianagaram District ...RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. // 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 not absorbing the petitioner's in the Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated absorption in grant-in-aid post of arbitrary and further direct the grant-in-aid post pursuant to its proceedings 3.5.2019 issued in relation to the petitioner's the 4th respondent school as illegal and 3 respondent to immediately act upon its proceedings Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/20l9, dated 3.5.2019 and absorb the petitioner in the said post and pay all the consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court be pleased to grant interim direction directing the immediately pay the salaries to the petitioner CPC praying that in the circumstances may respondents 3 and 4 to pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 2 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 be pleased to grant interim direction may directing the 3rd respondent to immediately act upon its proposals vide 3.5,2019 for absorption of the petitioner in grant-in-aid post, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated Counsel for the PetitioneriSRI KASA JAGANMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION REDDY III WPNO: 13904 of 2021: Between: M. Venkata Naidu, S/o. Satyam Naidu, Aged 51 years, Occ. S.G.Teacher, O/o. Dhulikuppa Village, Udayapuram (Po), Mondemkhallu (So), Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Andhra Pradesh. ...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. Dulikuppa Village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Mandal Educational Officer, Kuruppam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENTS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. / 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 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 3.3.2021 holding that petitioner's absorption into grant-in-aid post is not feasible for consideration as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and further direct the 3rd respondent to absorb the petitioner in grant- in-aid post pursuant to proceedings Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 3.5.2019. r. 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 respondents 3 and 4 to immediately pay the salaries to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the PetitionerrSRI. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ( “U. - APHC010119272021 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 Nos: 6885/2021 & 13904/2021 W.P.No.6885/2021: Between; M.venkata Naidu, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES III 2.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following Common Order: The Writ Petition No.6885 of 2021 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 not absorbing the petitioners in the grant-in-aid post pursuant to its proceedings Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 3.5.2019 issued in relation to the petitioners absorption in grant-in-aid post of the 4^ respondent school as illegal and arbitrary and further 2 the 3^^ respondent to immediately act upon its proceedings Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 3 5 2019 and absorb the petitioner in the said post and pay all the consequential benefits....” direct The Writ Petition No.13904 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: I “ to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 3' respondent in issuing proceedings Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 3.3.2021 holding that petitioners absorption into grant-in-aid post is not feasible for consideration as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same and further direct the y" respondent to absorb the petitioner in grant-in-aid post pursuant to proceedings Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated3.5.2019....’’ 2. As the issue involved in both the writ petitions are same, they being taken up for hearing as well as disposal by way of this common order. are Since the facts in both the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore, W.P.No.13904 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein 3. hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. Brief facts of the case are that the 4*^ respondent school was permitted vide proceedings Rc.No.26/A4/2002, dated 10.07.2002 to fill up the vacant aided Secondary Graded Teacher post. Pursuant to the same, the 4*^ respondent conducted the selection process and appointed the petitioner. The 4**^ respondent has submitted proposals to the 3’’^ respondent and the 3’’'^ respondent vide proceedings dated 25.02.2003 had informed the 4*^ 4. respondent that they did not followed guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.1, t 3 dated 01.01.1994. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22780 of 2003 seeking for a direction to the respondents to ratify the proposals of the 4"" respondent school dated 24.07.2002 appointing the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 12.11.2018 disposed the writ petition, directing the 4^*^ respondent to submit fresh proposals to the 3'^ respondent and directed the 3^^^ respondent to consider such proposals. Accordingly, the 4 respondent submitted fresh proposals through the Mandal Education Officer vide Lr.Rc.No.5/DK/2002, dated 08.03.2019. The respondent has has proceedings issued proceedings vide Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 29.03.2019 stating that the proposals of the 4*^ respondent are verified with respect to the rules issued dated 01.01.1994 and also G.O.Ms.No.3, dated 10.01.2000 in G.O.Ms.No.1, respondent has not followed the said rules in petitioner’s appointment in the selection process. Pursuant to the proceedings dated 29.03.2019, the 5*'^ respondent addressed a proceedings dated respondent directing to furnish the proposals, vide Lr.Rc.No.3/AES,DK/2019, dated submitted detailed proposal for issuance of orders for respondent vide th and observed that the 4 th 30.03.2019 to the 4 Accordingly, the 4^^ respondent 02.04.2019 had th respondent. In turn, the 5 03.04.2019 informed the 3'^ respondent for th absorption to the 5 Lr.Rc.No.5/DK/2002, dated consideration of absorption of the petitioner. The 3 rd respondent had respondent to grant approval vide proceedings dated has been taken. While things stood thus, the nd requested the 2 03.05.2019. But till now no action 2’^^ respondent has issued proceedings dated 20.09.2019 observing that the 3^^ respondent is the competent authority and requested to take action, but no action has been taken so far. Suddenly, the 1"* respondent vide proceedings Memo No.ESE02-17/303/2019-PSI-CSE, stating that earlier fhe respondent has rejected the case of the petitioner in the light of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and therefore there is no point in approving. Hence, the respondent has issued proceedings vide Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.03.2021 stating that the proposal for absorption of the petitioner was not feasible for consideration. Aggrieved by the the present writ petition has been filed. N necessary dated 07.03.2020 same 5. The 3'"'^ respondent filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in the writ petition and stated that the 3^^ respondent gave permission to the 4“^ respondent school vide proceedings Rc.No.26/A4/2002, I 10.07.2002 to fill up two vacant aided secondary grade teacher posts i with OC (Women) and second with SC (Women) duly following the rule 12 including sub-rule (6) of Rule 13 of GO.Ms.No.1, PS-2, dated 01.01.1994. But the 4*^ respondent filled the vacant post with OC male candidate i.e., the petitioner which is against to rule 22(g) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966. Subsequently, the 3*^^ respondent rejected the proposals submitted by the 4*'' respondent vide Proceedings Rc.No.26/A4/94 , dated 25.02.2003 for approval of selection of the petitioner as Aided Teacher. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22780 of 2003 and this dated I.e., one ■AV' Court vide order dated 12.11.2018 disposed the writ petition, directing the management of the petitioner’s school to submit proposals afresh to the District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram, if the petitioner is discharging his duties as on the date. Subsequently, the 5“" respondent has forwarded fresh proposals of the 4**^ respondent in respect of the petitioner vide letter dated 08.03.2019 and after detailed examination of the proposals, the respondent has rejected to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Aided Teacher vide Progs.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 29.03.201‘9. Pursuant to the same, the 4‘^ respondent submitted proposals in respect of the petitioner to the 5 respondent for absorption into grant in aid vide letter dated 02.04.2019. In turn, the S**" respondent has submitted the same to the 3'^ respondent vide letter dated 03.04.2019. Subsequently, the 3^^ respondent has addressed 2 respondent and submitted the proposals in respect of the petitioner for absorption into grant in aid for necessary instructions received after lapse of schedule time. It is further stated that the already filed W.P.No.6885 of 2021 for not absorbing the petitioner into grant i aid post pursuant to Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.(55.2019 of the respondent. When the said writ petition is pending, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the proceedings Progs.Rc.No.61 4/B2/2019, dated 03.03.2021 of the 3^^ respondent in which the proposals for absorption of the petitioner into grant in aid post was rejected. It is further stated that the proceedings dated 03.05.2019 of the 3^^^ respondent is a proposal, but not the the as the proposals are petitioner has in 6 order/proceedings, which is a part of process of proposal. It cannot be referred by the petitioner as evidence that the respondent recommended for absorption of the petitioner into Grant-in-Aid. Therefore, prays to dismiss the writ petition. The rejoinder filed by the petitioner stating that the 3"'^ respondent granted permission vide Rc.No.26/A4/2002, dated 10.07.2002 to fill aided SGT vacancies, hence the 4*^ respondent initiated proceedings. In the meantime, the 5*^ respondent issued another urgent notice vide Rc.No.2/2002, dated 01.07.2002 directing the 4'*^ respondent to open the school within 15 days on the ground that both the Aided Teachers working in the school retired on 30.06.2002 on the ground that both the Aided teachers working in the school retired on 30.06.2002, as there is no regular teacher in the school threatening to take action otherwise. The 4*^ respondent appointed the petitioner vide Rc.No.Spl.1/2002, dated 22.07.2002 against the aided SGT Vacancy and sent proposals for approval of petitioner’s appointment on 24.02.2003 through the Mandal Educational Officer. In view of urgent notice of the 3^^^ respondent, the petitioner has joined duty immediately. It is further stated that, in compliance of the order of this Court dated 12.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.22780 of 2003, the 4*^ respondent sent proposals for approval of petitioner’s appointment. The 5*^ respondent recommended to consider for absorption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 30.06.2017. The 3'^'^ respondent forwarded the proposals vide Lr.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.05.2019 for 6. 7 absorption of petitioner’s service against the aided vacancy in terms of G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 30.06.2019. The 2"'^ respondent returned the proposals vide Memo No.ESE02-17/303/2019-PSI-CBE, dated 07.03.2020 to take necessary action as he is the competent authority, while that the DEO has already rejected the proposals as being violative of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and there is no recommending for absorption. It is further stated that the 3^'^ respondent who forwarded the proposals vide Lr.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.05.2019 expressed satisfaction of the .conditions under G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 30.06.2017 for absorption have no justifiable reason to turn around and pass the impugned orders rejecting the proposals, which is obviously by reason of the Memo issued by 2"^^ respondent office and without application of mind. Therefore, prays to allow the writ petition. Heard Mr.Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 7. petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-lll, for the respondents. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents urged in the writ petitions, submits that, the respondents 3 and 4 vide 8. letters dated 03.04.2019 and 03.05.2019 respectively clearly stated that the petitioner satisfied all the conditions set out under G.O.Ms.No.41 for absorption. The candidature of the petitioner was not considered for absorption in terms of G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 30.06.2017 only in view of cryptic Memo of the 2 respondent office dated 07.03.2020. He further submits that, neither the memo dated 07.03.2020 nor the impugned order dated 03.03.2021 contain any reasons much less the valid reasons. The 3'^'^ respondent being the competent authority and was satisfied with compliance of conditions under G.O.Ms.No.41 could not rejected the approval. The reasons mentioned in the counter affidavit that the procedure under G.O.Ms.No.1 of 1994 is violated by the management during the selection of the petitioner in 2002 are not relevant for absorption under G.O.Ms.No.41 of 2017. He further submits that, the reasons mentioned for rejection of approval to petitioner’s selection and appointment in 2002 are not relevant for approving absorption in to aided vacancy under G.O.Ms.No.41. The conditions for approval of selection and absorption of teacher already working are not one and the same. The respondents having said that the petitioner satisfied the conditions for approval cannot orice again fall back on the 2002 violations particularly after 20 years of service. Therefore, learned counsel prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader while reiterating the contents made in the counter affidavit, submits that, after rejection of the proposals for absorption of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 by the 3"'^ respondent, the 4*^ respondent has submitted proposals to the 5*^ respondent for consideration of the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.41, Education Department, dated 30.06.2017 and also guidelines issued by the 2"^^ respondent vide Progs.Rc.No.90/PS- 9 1/2010-1, dated 20.07.2017. In turn, the 5*'' respondent has submitted the same to the 3'^ respondent and the 3^'^ respondent submitted the proposal to the 2"*^ respondent for necessary instructions. After completion of process of a speaking order vide Progs.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.03.2021 informing the petitioner that it is not feasible to consider under the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.41, Education Department, dated 30.06.2017. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader prays to dismiss the writ petition. rd proposals the 3 respondent issued 10. Perused the record. On a perusal of the material on record, this Court observed that, the 4**^ respondent has forwarded the proposals of the petitioner for absorption to the 5**^ respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.3/AES,DK/2019, dated 02.04.2019, which 11. reads as follows; “Further, I submit that the particulars required for absorption of the individual in to grant in aid and post in terms of the guidelines issued in guidelines issued by the CSE, A.P., Amaravati vide Proc. Rc.No.90/PS-l/2010-1, dated 20.07.2017 are as submitted below. Prescribed condition for absorption Particulars of document Permission for appointment was granted by the DEO vide Proc.Rc.No.26/A4/2002, 10.07.2002 (Copy enclosed) Letter/Order of approval issued by authority (DEO/RJDSE/CSE/Government) appointing in un aided posts Appointment orders issued by the Management 1 competent the dated dated Proc.Rc.No.3/2002, 22.07.2002 of the Manager, AES, Dhulikupppa of Kurupam (M) (Copy enclosed) 2 Service Register of the Candidate Staff Attendance Register Original SR enclosed 3 Xerox copies enclosed with attestation The individual possessed M.A., B.Ed., certificates copies enclosed for kind perusal 4 Original Certificates of qualification (Academic and Training) to hold the post (as per the rules existing as on 5 } 10 ' % the date of approval in un aided post). Vacancy position (sanctioned aided post) Enrolment particulars as on December 2016 (Aadhaar seeded data). 6 Enclosed with confirmation of MEO, Kuruoam ne~^ength is 23 as on 3f' December2016. Copy enclosed 7 In view of the above position, as the above individual appointed by the management with the permission of the District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram ^ continued in the said post as on today, thereby fulfilled all the condihons stipulated in the Government orders issued in G O Ms No 41 Edn Dept., dated;30.06.2017 and also guidelines issued by the CSE A P Amaravaii vide Proc.Rc.No.90/PS-1/2010-1.. dated:20.07.2017 may be entitled to absorb into the vacant grant in aid post at AES, Dhulikuppa of Kurupam Mandal hence the proposals submitted for consideration and to absorb Sri M. Venkata Naidu S/o Satyam Naidu against the vacant grant in aid SGTpost. Hence, I request the kind authority to issue orders for absorption of Sri M.Venkata Naidu. S/o Satyam Naidu against the vacant grant in aid SGT post at AES. Dhulikuppa of Kurupam Mandal in terms of orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.41, Edn.. Dept.. dated:30.06.2017 and also guidelines issued by the CSE A p’ Amaravati vide Proc.Rc.No.90/PS-l/2010-1., dated:20.07.2017 at the earliest' " 12. As seen from the record, it is observed that, the 5'^ respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.5/DK/2002, dated 03.04.2019 submitted proposals to the 3 respondent, which reads as follows: rd “Hence. I request the kind authority to consider the proposals of the Manager. AES. Dhulikuppa of Kurupam Mandal for absorption of Sri.M.Venkata Naidu. S/o Satyam Naidu against the grant in aid SGT post at AES. Dhulikuppa of Kurupam Mandal in terms of the Govt orders issued in GO cited and also guidelines and instructions of the CSE. A.P.. Amaravati vide reference cited and issue necessary orders in this regard at the earliest ” 13. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Head Master in the 4*^" respondent school on 22.07.2002. As the 3'^^ respondent has not approved the petitioner’s services, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22780 of 2003 and this Court has disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondent-school to submit proposals afresh to the DEO, Vizianagaram, if the petitioner is discharging his duties as on today, within a period of two weeks from the date 11 of receipt of a copy of order. On receipt of such proposals, the 2'"'^ respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. In compliance with the order of this Court, the S**" respondent has forwarded fresh proposals of the respondent in respect of the petitioner vide letter dated 08.03.2019. After a detailed examination of the proposals, the 3^^ respondent has rejected to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Aided Teacher vide Progs.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 29.03.2019. Subsequently, the 4*^ respondent submitted proposals in respect of the petitioner to the 5*^ respondent for absorption into grant-in-aid vide letter dated 02.04.2019, and in turn, the 5'^ respondent submitted the same proposals to the respondent vide letter dated 03.04.2019. The 3'''‘ respondent then submitted proposals to the 2""^ respondent vide Lr.Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.05.2019, wherein the 3^*^ respondent stated that the individual has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.41 SE (PS) Department, dated 30.06.2017, as well as the instructions and guidelines of the CSE, A.P., Amaravathi vide Proc.Rc.No.90/PS-l/2010-1, dated 20.07.2017 for absorption as one time measure. But the 3^^^ respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.614/B2/2019, dated 03.03.2021 stating that the petitioner’s absorption into grant-in-aid is not feasible for consideration, which is contrary to earlier proposal dated 03.05.2019. 12 14. Having regard to the facts and ci considering the submissions of both the learned Circumstances of the case and on counsels, this Court is of the opinion that, the impugned proceedings dated taking into consideration of the the 3^^ 03.03.2021 is passed without earlier proposal dated 03.05.2019 issued by respondent. Therefore, this Court iIS inclined to dispose of the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2021. writ petitions by setting aside the i 15. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions proceedings vide Rc.No.614/B2/2019 are disposed of. The impugned dated 03.03.2021 issued by the 3^^ respondent is hereby set aside. Further 3'" respondent with the matter is remanded back to the a direction to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, respondent vide duly taking into account the recommendation made by the 3'^'^ letter dated 03.05.2019 (04) weeks from the date of and pass appropriate orders within a period of four receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K.J.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, / Secretariat, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P. 3. The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. ' 4. The Manager, Aided Elementary School. Dulikuppa Village, Kurupam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. j 5. Mandal Educational Officer, Kuruppam Mandal, Vizianagaram District. r One CC to SRI. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES III, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Three C.D.Copies 6. 7. 8. 9. nm a- HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 ORDER WP.Nos.6885 & 13904 of 2021 * 0 2 APR 2025 J ^ CiHreni Seetlon DISPOSNG OF THE WPs WITHOUT COSTS