IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 7339 of 1999 Between: M. Sivasankar Reddy S/o.Subbarami Reddy M.P.Elementary School Maramreddypalli (HW) Sitarampuram Mandal Nellore Dist ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004 3. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer Mandal Parishad, Sitarampuram, Nellore District .....RESPONDENTS 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 pass orders in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the judgment of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal and Govt. Memo No.654/Ser.III-2/95-2, dt.6/2/1996 and the consequential orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.A.136/98, Dt.17/10/98 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and consequently, declare the above judgment of A.P. Administrative Tribunal as illegal and arbitrary and direct the 1st respondent to accord post facto approval for the treating the training period as on duty as referred by the 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. KASA JAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES II The Court made the following: ORDER: (per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the judgment dated 31-12-1998 in O.A.No.8161 of 1998 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), the Govt. Memo No.654/Ser.III-2/95-2, dated 6-2-1996 as well as the consequential orders of the third respondent in Rc.No.A.136/98, dated 17-10-1998 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitioner herein is the applicant before the Tribunal and the status of the parties will be referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the applicant, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, was selected to undergo visually handicapped Training during the year 1994-95 under in service quota and he was relieved by the third respondent for the said purpose on deputation subject to approval of the second respondent since the course was started. The second respondent sent proposals to the first respondent vide letter in Rc.No.1877/S2/94, dated 6-3-1995 seeking ratification for having sent him for training on deputation by referring the cases where the Government paid special allowance for in service teachers, who were sent on deputation and the same was negatived without assigning any reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed O.A. before the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.A. directing the applicant to seek sanction of training special allowance as per the Rules for such period. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though he was deputed for undergoing visually handicapped training for one year under in service quota, the benefit of treating the training period as on duty, which was already extended to similarly situated persons under G.O.Rt.No.2114, Education Department, dated 12-12-1994 and G.O.Rt.No.904, Education Department, dated 30-5-1994, has not been extended to the applicant despite recommendations of the second respondent. He further contended that the order of the second respondent rejecting the proposal of the applicant suffers from various infirmities viz., without assigning any reasons and without application of mind, and therefore, the said action amounts to discrimination. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that the applicant was deputed for training on his self-security basis in anticipation of the orders of the higher authorities. In view of the fact that the proposal of the applicant was rejected and that the applicant has undergone for training at his own risk without the orders from the Government, he was not eligible for any benefit as sought for. Before going into the merits of the case, the fact that remains undisputed is that the applicant, who was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, was selected to undergo visually handicapped Training during the year 1994-95 under in service quota and he was relieved by the third respondent-Mandal Parishad Development Officer for the said purpose on deputation subject to approval of the second respondent-Commissioner and Director of School Education since the course was started. The second respondent sent the proposals to the first respondent vide letter in Rc.No.1877/S2/94, dated 6-3-1995 seeking ratification for having sent him for training on deputation by referring the cases where the Government paid special allowance for in service teachers, who were sent on deputation. If that being the case, it can be said that the services of the applicant were utilized by relieving him only in view of exigency because the course was already started. In this background of the matter, for relieving of the applicant by the third respondent in order to meet the exigency, laches, if any, for considering the case of the applicant on par with the similarly situated persons, cannot be fastened against the applicant inasmuch as he is an employee to carry out the orders or the directions of his superior officers. But, the Tribunal has failed to consider all these aspects while considering the case of the applicant. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that no explanation is forthcoming as to why the proposals sent by the second respondent could not be considered by assigning any cogent reasons. Therefore, the action of the authorities, in not considering the case of the applicant on par with the similarly situated persons, amounts to discrimination and arbitrariness. Consequently, the orders impugned in the O.A are liable to be set aside. In the circumstances, this writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31-12-1998 in O.A.No.8161 of 1998 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the Govt. Memo No.654Ser.III-2/95-2, dated 6-2-1996 as well as the consequential order of the third respondent in Rc.No.A.136/98, dated 17-10-1998 are set aside. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 16-09-2008 Ksn ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TPK}