APHC010132262005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT PETITION NO: 2131 of 2005 Bench Sr.No:- 12 [3506] P. Srinivasa Reddy, Kurnool ...Petitioner Vs. The Govt Of A P Secretariat Hyderabad 4 and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: K N VIJAYA LAXMI Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): GP FOR EDUCATION, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING, PRASANNAKUMAR THOTAKURA, GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL CORAM : SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN DATE : 5th February 2026 The Court made the following order: This writ petition challenges action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in not admitting the petitioner’s post into grant-in-aid with effect from the date of initial appointment, on par with similarly situated 2 persons, and also assails the Government Memo dated 18.11.2024, passed by respondent No.1, by which the petitioner’s request came to be rejected, to be illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. 2. The petitioner was appointed as B.Ed. Assistant (Social) in unaided post with respondent No.5 School. The said selection was stated to be in terms of Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. The petitioner was appointed by proceedings dated 11.06.1995 and has been discharging duties since then. It is stated that respondent No.4, by proceedings dated 06.03.1997, submitted proposals for admission of one unaided S.A. (SS) post and one unaided SGT post into grant-in-aid in respect of respondent No.5 School. Since the petitioner was already working in unaided post, his post was recommended for being treated as grant-in-aid. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and three others preferred W.P.No.12959 of 2001, challenging the indiscriminate action of the respondents. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 19.10.2001, directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner by placing his candidature before the High Level Committee for consideration of admitting his post to grant-in-aid. 3 3. Respondent No.1, by proceedings dated 16.04.2002, is also stated to have directed respondent No.3 to place the name of the petitioner before the High Level Committee for consideration. Initially, the High Level Committee made recommendations in favour of the petitioner; however, the recommendation was not positively considered and his case came to be rejected. Challenging the same, he preferred W.P.No.2442 of 2004. In the said writ petition, interim direction was granted directing the respondents therein to consider admitting the post of the petitioner to grant-in-aid as per law, in view of the recommendations made by respondent No.3 vide proceedings dated 13.09.1997, within a period of two (02) months. Eventually, for non-implementation of the said orders, the petitioner also filed C.C.No.984 of 2004. In that background, respondent No.1 passed the order dated 18.11.2004 rejecting the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said rejection order, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 have filed detailed counter affidavit supporting the decision made in terms of the impugned order. A preliminary objection was taken stating that inasmuch as the engagement of the petitioner by respondent No.5 was purely 4 a contractual engagement between the said parties and if at all the post now sought to be recognized as grant-in-aid is not considered favourably, it is for the school to espouse the cause and not the petitioner. It is further stated that the subject school had already been awarded seven grant-in-aid posts and, considering the teacher-pupil ratio, the adequacy of recognizing teaching posts for the purpose of admitting grant-in-aid had been sufficiently addressed. As there were only 31 students present in Classes 6 and 7 as on the date of consideration, the request for recognizing another post for grant-in-aid does not arise. 6. Heard Ms. K.N. Vijaya Laxmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the petitioner was duly appointed through a regular selection process in terms of Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, and has been working continuously with respondent No.5, having regard to the nature of duties discharged and considering the requirement of having regular post, this was a fit case for recognizing the petitioner’s post as grant-in-aid. It is 5 further contended that respondent No.3, way back in the year 1997 itself, recommended the case of the petitioner for grant-in- aid and, therefore, the respondents ought not to have rejected such recommendation on frivolous considerations. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, supported the impugned order dated 18.11.2004 by contending that the decision was taken by the competent authority not to admit the petitioner’s post to grant- in-aid for the reason that the subject school had already been sanctioned seven aided posts and that the teacher-student ratio was falling short for granting further aided posts. It was also contended that there was no sufficient workload adequate for the existing staff. In that view of the matter, such decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. He further contended that, as of now, the school has already surrendered the aided posts to the Government in view of G.O.Ms.No.50, dated 17.08.2021, and that the school has also closed its operations with effect from 25.09.2021.The petitioner is no longer working in any capacity, therefore, technically, the matter has rendered infructuous. 6 9. On perusal of the impugned order of rejection dated 18.11.2004, issued by respondent No.1, it goes to show that the request of the petitioner for recognizing his post for grant-in-aid came to be rejected on the ground that the High Level Committee, having examined the proposals, found that the average daily attendance of the school was uneconomic. It was also observed that there were already seven aided posts sanctioned to the said school and that the workload assigned to the existing staff was far insufficient considering the teacher-pupil ratio. For every one teacher the student ratio envisaged being 1:40, the number of students pursuing education in the school was far below the said norms. Therefore, the High Level Committee, having bestowed its attention to the aforesaid aspects, came to the conclusion that there was no need for another aided post in the said school. 10. Though learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a recommendation made by respondent No.3 way back in the year 1997 in favour of the petitioner for treating the said post as grant-in-aid, inasmuch as the consideration by the High Level Committee was on 09.11.2004, which was much later, and that the teacher-pupil ratio as on the date of consideration was 7 taken into account for arriving at such decision, this Court is not impressed with the said submissions. At any rate, it is for the respondent No.1 to decide as to whether a particular school fits into the scheme of granting aid or not and merely because respondent No.5 school was not extended the benefit of grant-in- aid, this Court is not inclined to interfere. It is also to be noted that after the advent of a shift in the policy of granting aid, respondent No.5 has already surrendered the aided vacancies to the Government and has even closed its operations on 29.05.2021, by which date the petitioner also appears to have become unemployed. 11. Considering the subsequent developments as well, the relief claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted and the Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 05.02.2026 ANS 8 163 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 2131 OF 2005 Date: 05.02.2026 ANS