IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 25637 of 2003 Between: D. Suryakala Mukhi, D/o. D. Dakshinamurthy, Working as Teacher in Hindi Pandit Grade-II, SVUP School, Alluripet, Alluri, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Nellore District. 4 The Mandal Educational Officer, Alluru Mandal, Nellore District. 5 S.V.U.P. School, rep. by its Correspondent, Alluru, Nellore District. 6 Gandikota Sasikala W/o. Leela Venkata Prasad R6 is impleaded as per court order dt. 7-12-2004 in WPMP 22794 of 2004 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the proceedings of the 5th respondent dt: 5-12-2003 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the AP Education Act and amounts of violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the proceedings of 5th respondent by continue the petitioner in service. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA & KAMLA SEELAM B. Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHIINI WRIT PETITION No.25637 OF 2003 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the Correspondent of the 5th respondent dated 5.12.2003 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in 5th respondent School as arbitrary and illegal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was selected by the duly constituted Selection Committee under G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S. 2), dated 1.1.1994, as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in the 5th respondent School. The said appointment was also approved by the District Educational Officer, Nellore, vide proceedings dated 5.8.2003 from the date of her joining i.e., 23.7.2003. While so, the impugned order dated 5.12.2003 came to be passed by the Correspondent of the 5th respondent stating that as per the orders of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, dated 10.09.2002, the candidates who obtained Hindi Sikshak Certificates from the institutions located outside A.P. are not eligible for consideration for selection of Hindi Pandit Grade-I and Grade-II and since the petitioner possessed her qualification certificate from Parlakimidi, Orissa State, she is not eligible to hold the post and therefore her appointment is cancelled. The said order is challenged in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the impugned order which was passed without prior notice to the petitioner and without giving her an opportunity to make her representation against the impugned action is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also contended that since the petitioner was appointed by the duly constituted Selection Committee and her appointment was also approved by the competent authority, it is not open to the respondents now to contend that the Hindi Sikshak Certificate possessed by her is not valid. In the counter-affidavit filed by the District Educational Officer, the selection of the petitioner by duly constituted Selection Committee and subsequent approval of her appointment has not been disputed. However, while reiterating that as per the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, dated 10.9.2002, the candidates who have obtained Hindi Sikshak Certificates from the institutions located out side A.P. State are not eligible for selection for the posts of Hindi Pandits, it is stated that the petitioner’s selection was approved by oversight. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent Management stating that having noticed that the petitioner possessed the certificate issued by Parlakhemundi Institution, Orissa State which is outside Andhra Pradesh State and has no recognition of the State Government as well as National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore, the Staff Selection Committee made a specific endorsement in the selection list. However, the petitioner’s selection was approved by the District Educational Officer vide proceedings dated 18.7.2003 and accordingly the petitioner was appointed by the 5th respondent after obtaining a specific undertaking from the petitioner that she would be responsible for the consequences that may arise on her qualification certificate. Subsequently when the 5th respondent claimed salary on behalf of the petitioner, the same was disallowed by the District Educational Officer relying upon the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, dated 10.9.2002. Thereafter, the District Educational Officer by proceedings dated 13.11.2003 informed the 5th respondent that the order dated 18.7.2003 approving the appointment of the petitioner shall stand cancelled. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 5.12.2003 was issued informing the petitioner that her appointment is cancelled. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order dated 5.12.2003 was nothing but communication of the District Educational Officer’s decision vide his proceedings dated 13.11.2003. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be noticed from the above facts which are not in dispute, the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by the District Educational Officer by order dated 13.11.2003 on the ground that as per the orders of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, dated 10.9.2002 the petitioner who obtained Hindi Sikshak Certificate from Parlakhemundi institution in Orissa State is not eligible for appointment as Hindi Pandit Grade-II. Admittedly no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the said order and the proceedings of the District Educational Officer dated 13.11.2003 were not even communicated to the petitioner. Even in the consequential order passed by the 5th respondent, the said fact was not informed to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the impugned order being in violation of the principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. It is also relevant to note that during the pendency of this writ petition G.O.Ms.No.111, Education (SE.Ser.VI) Department, dated 28.11.2007 was issued with regard to consideration of the candidates of DSC-2002 who obtained Hindi Sikshak Prasikshan Certificate from Hindi Prachara Sabha, Hyderabad from the centers located in Karnataka and Orissa States. In the said order, it was made clear that the Director of School Education, Hyderabad, was permitted to appoint 429 candidates of DSC 2002 as Hindi Pandits Grade-I and Grade-II duly considering the Hindi Sikshak Prasikshan Certificates obtained prior to 16.04.2002 in respect of the students who pursued the course in Paralakhemundi institution in Orissa State subject to the eligibility i.e., the merit of the applicants and other candidates as per Rules and also as per the provisions contained in G.O.Rt.No.126, Edn. (SE.Ser.VII) Department, dated 25.2.2006. In the case on hand, the petitioner claims that she obtained certificate from Hindi Sikshak Certificate in the year 2001 i.e., much prior to the cut off date mentioned in G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 28.11.2007. In the circumstances, it is necessary to reconsider the issue relating to the eligibility of the petitioner in the light of the subsequent orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.111, dated 28.11.2007. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 5.12.2003 passed by the 5th respondent as well as the order dated 13.11.2003 passed by the District Educational Officer are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed with a direction to the District Educational Officer to reconsider the issue with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. If for any reason the District Educational Officer is of the opinion that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment, notice shall be given to the petitioner affording her an opportunity to make her representation against the proposed action. Now that the impugned orders are set aside, there shall also be a direction to the District Educational Officer to allow the claims made by the 5th respondent management for payment of salary to which the petitioner is entitled to. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with the above directions. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.03.2009 gbs Note:- CC in one week. (B/O) gbs