APHC010501372013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10073/2013 Between: 1. P.UMA DEVI, W/O HARI PRAKASH, OCC: S.G.TEACHER WORKING IN SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, 2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P., HYDERABAD. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. K UDAYA SRI The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10073/2013 P.UMA DEVI, W/O HARI PRAKASH, OCC: S.G.TEACHER WORKING IN SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P., THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY P.UMA DEVI, W/O HARI PRAKASH, OCC: S.G.TEACHER WORKING IN SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ...PETITIONER THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS HYDERABAD. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P., THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR, SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS CORRESPONDENT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 WRIT PETITION NO: 20482/2014 Between: 1. P.SATYAVATHI,, W/O. R.V.V.RAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC S.G.TEACHER, WORKING IN SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPT., SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, A.P., HYDERABAD. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. 4. SRI VIDYARANYA ENGLISH MEDIUM SCHOOL, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CORRESPONDENT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L J VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION (AP) The Court made the following: 3 COMMON ORDER:- Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were engaged by the respondent No. 4 School as Secondary Grade Teachers on 02.07.1992 and 24.07.1990 respectively. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 2nd respondent rejected the claim of the petitioners for absorption vide proceedings dated 01.12.2008. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed on consolidated pay and have been continuously working without any break. It is further submitted that the 4th respondent had been repeatedly submitting proposals to the competent authority for absorption into grant-in-aid post. However, the competent authorities have neither accepted the said proposals nor rejected the said proposals. It is also submitted that the inaction on the part of the competent authorities to respond either accepting the proposal or rejecting the proposal would entitle the petitioners to claim for regularization as the inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent would have to be considered as deemed approval. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the 2nd respondent has introduced G.O.Ms.No.301, dated 25.09.1997 primarily issued to regulate the irregular appointments made by the private managements in violation of rules. It is further submitted that the petitioners have work continuously for more than 20 years and their services ought to have been regularized. The stand of the 2nd respondent that there is no un-aided post in the 4th respondent’s school does not hold a scrutiny of logic as the 4 4th respondent ought to have discontinued the petitioners’ services. It is submitted that the existing vacancy against which the petitioners have been continuously working is evident from the continuous service of the petitioners. When that being so, There is no justification in rejecting the case of the petitioners for regularization. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for School Education submits that the recruitment or engagement of the petitioners was not in accordance with the established procedure. That apart the competent authority has not approved the engagement of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners were working in an un-aided school. The 4th respondent management is running two institutions and the 4th respondent school is an un-aided school. The management of the 4th respondent is also running Sri Vidyaranya Oriental High School, Ananthapur, which is an aided school. Insofar as the 4th respondent is concerned, the management is managing the school from its own funds. It is submitted that an ad hoc teacher working in a non-sanctioned post cannot seek regularization. It is submitted that the G.M.O.Ms.No.301 cannot be made applicable to a private school and for services of private teachers working in a private un-aided school. The pay and other perks are expended by the management from and out of their own funds. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Narella S.V.Ravi Teja, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. There is no representation for the 4th respondent. 5 6. Perused the record. 7. The Impugned proceedings dated 01.12.2008 categorically state that the 4th respondent is running two separate schools Vidyaranya Oriental High School, Ananthapur as an aided institution and Sri Vidyaranya Oriental English Medium High School, Ananthapur as an un-aided school. The appointment of the petitioners in the year 1992 was against an un-aided post and the petitioners were working against an un-aided post. It is also stated that the Government Orders cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners. As such, the 2nd respondent has considered the service conditions of the petitioners and passed a reasonable order. 8. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the Court that the 4th respondent school is no longer functional. On these considerations, no further orders are required. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are closed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.11.02.2026 SR