IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13372 OF 2003 Between: B.N. Sukumar ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner and Director of School Education and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13372 OF 2003 ORDER: The petitioner joined the service of one of the private educational institutions established by the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, as S.G.B.T. Assistant in an unaided vacancy in the year 1984. Later on, he is said to have been appointed as B.Ed. Assistant in the year 1986. His appointment was approved by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, 2nd respondent herein, on 30.11.1996. The 4th respondent is one of the institutions established by the Church. The management applied to the Government to admit 35 posts of that school to grant-in-aid. Through G.O.Ms.No.323, dated 17.09.1994, the Government admitted 17 posts into grant-in-aid. The post, against which the petitioner was sought to be working, was not admitted. The petitioner states that one post of B.Ed. Assistant fell vacant on account of promotion of one Mr. K. Solman Raju as Headmaster. His grievance is that in spite of repeated requests, the 4th respondent did not submit proposals for his absorption and to defeat his claim, a teacher working at different school was brought to the 4th respondent institution. He prays for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not absorbing him against the post of B.Ed. Assistant (Maths and Physical Science) in the 4th respondent institution as illegal, arbitrary and prays for consequential directions. On behalf of 1st to 3rd respondents, counter affidavit is filed stating that no proposals were received from the 4th respondent for absorption of the petitioner against the vacancy of B.Ed. Assistant. It is also stated that the petitioner was absorbed against an aided vacancy in an institution established by the church at Rentachintala, but he has not chosen to join that post. The 4th respondent also filed counter affidavit. According to it, the petitioner was not at all the teacher in the 4th respondent institution and he declined the proceedings for his absorption in the institution in Rentachintala. It is also alleged that the petitioner was not appointed since 2001 onwards. Heard Sri M. Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for School Education and Sri Ram Mohan Mahadeva, learned counsel for the 4th respondent. There is uncertainty as to the institution, on the rolls of which, the petitioner is borne. While the petitioner asserts that he is the teacher of the 4th respondent institution, the respondents contend that he was in the Telugu medium institution and in particular, the Girls High School at Rentachintala. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is silent as to the date on which a clear vacancy of B.Ed. Assistant has arisen in the 4th respondent institution. The respondents have made reference to proceedings, dated 15.02.2001, through which the petitioner is said to have been absorbed against an aided vacancy in the Lutheran Girls High School, Rentachintala, by the 4th respondent. That could not have given rise to any right, unless the proposals were approved by the competent authority. Assuming that every factor existed in favour of the petitioner, viz., that he was borne on the rolls of the 4th respondent institution, there existed a clear vacancy of B.Ed. Assistant and the 4th respondent has forwarded the proposals, the stumbling block existed in the form of ban, imposed by the Government for appointment or absorption against the vacancies in aided institutions for the post, almost a decade. The matter is now pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner has, since attained the age of superannuation therefore, no relief can be granted as regards his absorption against the aided vacancy. The petitioner stated that he has not been permitted to function in the 4th respondent institution from 2003 onwards. If his grievance is about the refusal on the part of the 4th respondent to permit him to work, he can make a representation to the 2nd respondent for necessary relief. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed, as regards the claim of the petitioner for absorption. It is left open for him to make a representation to the 2nd respondent, in case, he was prevented from attending duties, in the institution in which he was working, without any basis. The 2nd respondent shall examine the matter with reference to the relevant record and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 27, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13372 OF 2003 December 27, 2010