IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 6042 of 2006 Between: Smt. L. Lalitha Kumari W/o C.V. Subba Rao Jyothi Bala Mandir High School, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh Education Department, rep by Secretary, Secretariat, at Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 3 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad 4 District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, at Hyderabad 5 Jyothi Bala Mandir High School, rep by Correspondent, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad .....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 issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction, preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Government Memo. NO. 1576/PS-1/A1/2006-1 dated 20- 02-2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law and consequently direct the respondents herein to regularize the services of the petitioner with effect from her original absorption i.e. 01-1 2-1994 vide proceedings No. JBMHS/Vid-94. 1460 dt 19-12-1994 of the 5th respondent with all consequential benefits while directing the respondents herein to release the same to the petitioner forthwith; and pass such other or further orders as are necessary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Balawadi Teacher on 03.07.1978 in the fifth respondent institution, which is admitted to grant-in-aid. It is stated that the petitioner secured the qualifications of Graduation in the year 1989 and B.Ed. in the year 1993 and on that basis, she was being treated as Secondary Grade Teacher. In the year 1994, one post which was admitted to grant-in-aid became vacant, on account of the retirement of the incumbent. The fifth respondent issued proceedings, dated 19.12.1994, absorbing the petitioner against the aided vacancy and thereafter, submitted proposals to the District Educational Officer, the fourth respondent, and the Regional Joint Director of School Education, the third respondent, for approval. Substantial correspondence ensued and, ultimately, the services of the petitioner were regularized against the aided vacancy, vide proceedings, dated 20.07.2004, with prospective effect. The grievance of the petitioner is that her services ought to have been regularized against regular vacancy with effect from 01.12.1994. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled to be regularized with retrospective effect, in view of the fact that her appointment was not made in accordance with law. Reliance is placed upon various Government Orders as well as G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS) Department, dated 01.01.1994, which insists that the appointments must be made in accordance with the procedure stipulated therein. Sri J.Kanakaiah, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client fulfilled all the qualifications by 1994 itself to be appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher and was, in fact, absorbed against the aided vacancy. He contends that the teachers from the same school were extended the benefit of absorption against the aided vacancy with retrospective effect, whereas such a treatment was denied to the petitioner. The learned Government Pleader for School Education, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was never subjected to selection by the committee constituted under the Government Orders issued from time to time and her absorption itself was made almost as a matter of grace. It is urged that the petitioner does not have any vested right to be absorbed against a vacancy admitted to grant-in-aid. The petitioner entered the service of the fifth respondent institution as Balawadi Teacher in the year 1978. The record does not disclose that any specific order of appointment was issued appointing her as Secondary Grade Teacher before she came to be absorbed against an aided vacancy of Secondary Grade Teacher on 19.12.1994. Even while the case of the petitioner was pending consideration before respondents 3 and 4, substantial developments have taken place in this regard. For instance, in pursuance of the directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court, through its Judgment, dated 31.12.1996, in W.P.No.15921 of 1989, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.301 Education (PS.I) Department, dated 25.09.1997, constituting the committees and prescribing the procedure for regularization of irregular appointments of teaching and non-teaching staff in aided schools. This Court directed that such of the teachers, who are found to be qualified on scrutiny by the selection committees, shall be extended the benefit from 01.04.1997 onwards. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not subjected to selection by the committee constituted under G.O.Ms.No.301, dated 25.09.1997. When the teachers who were found eligible after scrutiny by the selection committee are extended the benefit from 01.04.1997, the question of regularization of the service of the petitioner with effect from 01.12.1994 does not arise. It is no doubt true that in certain cases, the Government absorbed the teachers in private aided institutions against aided vacancies with retrospective effect. They, however, are cases where the appointment was against aided vacancies and the procedure for appointment was followed. For one reason or the other, the petitioner was not subjected to the eligibility test by the committees constituted from time to time on different orders. This Court finds it difficult to extend the benefit of retrospective absorption of the petitioner, unless her appointment was verified by a committee, which is to be considered under the extant rules. If the petitioner did not get the opportunity of being scrutinized, she can make a representation to respondents 3 and 4, who in turn, will consider the feasibility of subjecting her to any such verification and extend the benefit according to the provisions that are in force as of now. The necessary action on the representation, if any, made by the petitioner shall be taken, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the same. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:11.06.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}