APHC010031012012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 31081/2012 Between: S. Grace Vineela, ...PETITIONER AND ABM High School and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARANADHA RAJU KATTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. AMRUTHA SANJEEVA The Court made the following Order: The petitioner was appointed as a Mathematics Teacher in an aided vacancy on 31.08.2008. Though the petitioner was appointed against the existing aided vacancy in the 1st respondent/school, the petitioner was not extended the pay scales attached to the aided post. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working in the 1st respondent/school for the last 17 years without being granted the grant-in-aid scale. 2 3. The 1st respondent/school also submitted representations to the concerned official respondents seeking their ratification of the selection of the petitioner. The 1st respondent, vide proceedings dated 01.09.2008, requested the Regional Joint Director/3rd respondent to ratify the appointment dated 31.08.2008. The 3rd respondent was also informed the details of strength of students and the requirement of ratifying the appointment of the petitioner against the aided vacancy. Despite several correspondences from the 1st respondent to the 3rd respondent, including the correspondence dated 28.12.2009, the respondents have not ratified the appointment. It is submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner has been forced to continue working at the same with a meager salary, without being granted the salary attached to the post of aided teacher. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made a representation dated 11.04.2011, requesting the 1st respondent to grant the pay attached to the aided vacancy and also brought to the notice of the 1st respondent, the difficulties faced by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the petitioner is 3 entitled to the pay attached to the aided post as she was appointed to the existing aided vacancy on 31.08.2008. 5. The learned Government Pleader for School Education submits that the appointment of the petitioner on 31.08.2008 was completely irregular and no procedure was followed under Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. It is also submitted that the state is required to ratify the appointment of the petitioner for the extension of the aided scales. However, the ratification from the state has not been communicated in view of the ban in recruitment which was in force from 20.10.2004, on account of Government Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-2010. The learned Government Pleader also submits that G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 also amends at clause 8 is as follows; (8) All appointments made either teaching or non- teaching staff by aided or un-aided institutions shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority. For this purpose the educational agency shall inform the competent authority within one- month the selection. The Competent Authority shall grant approval unless the selection has been in violation of these rules. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the educational agency to remind the competent authority one month after the initial communication, if no approval is received. The burden of proof of having communicated the selection to the competent authority shall lie with the educational agency. 4 6. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay scale because no permission was granted for the appointment and thus, the petitioner cannot claim the aided pay scales. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 8. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 31.08.2008, appointing the petitioner against the existing aided vacancy and on 01.09.2008, the 1st respondent communicated the appointment to the competent authority seeking ratification. The 1st respondent has further communicated periodically to the 3rd respondent seeking ratification for the extension of the aided pay scale to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the 1st respondent/school continues to be an aided school as on date. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent/school has not conducted any recruitment after 31.08.2008. 9. The learned Government Pleader submits that the 1st respondent school has surrendered the aid and that the recognition of the school was renewed for the academic year 2022-23 without aid, in 5 consideration of the future of students studying in Class X. The District Education Officer, Prakasam District, directed the 1st respondent school to close on the last working day of the academic year 2022-23 and to shift the students of Classes VI to X to a nearby school, along with handling over all school records and registers, including certificates of the candidates, to the headmaster of the said school under acknowledgement. It is submitted that the 1st respondent school has ceased to exist thereafter. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, aggrieved by the orders passed by the District Education Officer, Special Officer and Mandal Education Officer, the 1st respondent school filed W.P.Nos.15898 and 6700 of 2023. This Court disposed off the writ petitions, granting liberty to the 1st respondent to submit a fresh representation for the grant of recognition for the academic year 2024- 25. It is submitted that the school is no longer functioning and is no longer an aided school. A direction from this Court to the 1st respondent to pay the aided salary to the petitioner cannot be considered by this Court. 6 11. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the petitioner did not undergo the regular selection procedure; as such, she is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 12. Considering the submissions, the present writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 13.02.2025 NKA 7 220 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.31081 of 2012 Date: 13.02.2025 NKA