THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY Writ Petition No.18743 of 2005 24-08-2005 Between: Ch.Balasubramanyam ... PETITONERS AND 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. By its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.ANANDA REDDY Writ Petition No.18743 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not approving the promotion of the petitioner to the post of B.Ed., Assistant (Maths) as per the promotion order dated 09.08.2004. According to the petitioner, as one post of B.Ed., Assistant (Maths) fell vacant due to the promotion of the incumbent as a Junior Lecturer, the fourth respondent sought permission of the second respondent for filling up of the said vacant post by promoting him from Secondary Grade Teacher post. The said proposal was approved by proceedings dated 06.08.2004, pursuant to which, even orders were also passed by the fourth respondent on 09.08.2004 and further proposals were sent on 10.08.2004 by the fourth respondent to the third respondent, who in turn by proceedings dated 21.09.2004 sent the same to the second respondent seeking approval. Thereafter, it is stated that no action was taken by second respondent. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. In view of the clear vacancy of one post of B.Ed., Assistant (Maths) in the fourth respondent-College, the second respondent granted permission to promote the petitioner to the said post and consequently orders were passed by the fourth respondent promoting the petitioner on 09.08.2004; and further proceedings were sent for approval to the second respondent. However, no further orders were passed by the second respondent approving the promotion of the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. At the time of hearing, it is stated that perhaps the second respondent is under the impression that in view of the ban imposed by the first respondent by memo dated 20.10.2004, the petitioner’s case may not be approved. However, as per the decision of this Court, as the approvals have been granted long before the ban imposed by the first respondent, the said ban has no application to the present promotion. Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to approve the proposals forwarded by the fourth respondent expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _______________ 24.08.2005 Note: Issue CC in two days. (b/o) VGB