THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 5947 of 1998 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of 2nd respondent in promoting respondents 4 to 7, who are non-tribals, as B.Ed. Assistants in the Ashram Schools situated in the Scheduled areas, by order dated 22.12.1997, as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.275 SW (E) D dated 5.11.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.73 SW(E)D dated 25.4.1987; consequently, to set aside the order dated 22.12.1997 issued by 2nd respondent in so far as promoting respondents 4 to 7 as B.Ed. Assistants. It appears, petitioner belongs to ST community and appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 1.3.1998 and posted at Ashram School at Nallagonda, which is a scheduled area in East Godavari District. According to the petitioner, she completed the Teacher Training Course and thereafter acquired B.Ed. qualification in September, 1994. By the time of appointment as Secondary Grade Teacher, she was a graduate. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued G.O.Ms.No.302, Education, dated 10.7.1986 for opening 2090 Primary Schools in School-less tribal villages and habitations of which 1000 Primary Schools were to be opened during 1986-87 and the remaining, in the next year. The Government has ordered that the local tribals with the qualification of 10th class pass or fail shall alone be appointed as teachers on regular scale in the proposed Primary Schools. Therefore, according the said G.O., only the schedule tribe candidates were to be appointed in the Primary Schools in the tribal villages. Further, the Government of A.P. has issued G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 5.11.1986 exercising powers under paragraph 5(1) of the V Schedule to the Constitution of India. According to the said G.O., the posts of teachers in educational institutions in the scheduled areas of the State shall be filled in only by local members of scheduled tribes, notwithstanding anything contained in any Order or Rule. Pursuant to that, 2nd respondent had appointed the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher as she fulfilled the conditions stipulated in the said G.Os. The Government has further issued G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 25.4.1987 amending the notification issued in G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 5.11.1986 inserting the following proviso: “Provided that the posts of teachers such as B.Ed. Assistants, Telugu Pandits, Crafts Assistants and Hindi Pandits may be filled in by the members of non- tribals having requisite qualifications on temporary basis till the qualified local tribals are available. Provided further that the persons so appointed shall be replaced by the qualified local tribals as and when such tribals are available”. According to the petitioner, she has acquired B.Ed. qualification and is a teacher, specialized in Social Studies, as such, entitled for being promoted as B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies). There were 8 posts available as on 1.12.1997, but instead of promoting the petitioner, the respondents-authorities have considered non-tribals to the post of B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies). Therefore, the very appointment of respondents 4 to 7 is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.275 SW(E)D dated 5.11.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.73 SW(E)D dated 25.4.1987. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the official respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioner. Further, it is asserted that G.O.Ms.No.275 was issued on 5.11.1986 i.e. much prior to the appointment of respondents 4 to 7; therefore, the said G.O. or the amended G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 25.4.1987 have no application in case of respondents 4 to 7 and the petitioner cannot claim that he alone is entitled for being promoted to the post of B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies). Heard both sides. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents-authorities has drawn attention of the Court to G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 5.11.1986 and G.O.Ms.No.73 dated 25.4.1987 and submitted that these G.Os., have no application for the appointment and promotion of respondents 4 to 7. I am in full agreement with the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. Admittedly, G.O.Ms.275 was issued on 5.11.1986 i.e. much prior to the appointment of respondents 4 to 7. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that these G.Os., have any application or impact on the service conditions of respondents 4 to 7. Respondents 4 to 7 are not only seniors but, since the said G.Os. are also not applicable, they are entitled for promotion to the post of B.Ed. Assistant (Social Studies), as per their own merit. The writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 28-1-2010. MVB.