THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.21939 of 2011 and C.C.No.1245 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners were engaged as Residential Teachers, on contract basis, by the A.P. Residential Education Institution Society, the 2nd respondent, in the year 2005, to work in a scheme known as Rajeev Vidya Mission, the 1st respondent herein. The Government issued guidelines for appointment of the Teachers of this category, through G.O.Ms.No.59 School Education (SSA) Department, dated 22.08.2007. According to it, the contract would be terminated on the last working day of every year, and fresh contract would be entered in the next academic year, based upon the assessment and good performance of the Teacher. The grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have not renewed their contract in the academic year 2011-2012 and have instead issued a notification, dated 03.07.2011, inviting applications to fill the vacancies. They feel aggrieved by the said notification. An interim order was passed by this Court on 03.08.2011, directing that the petitioners be continued as Teachers, until the posts are filled with regular incumbents. Stating that the interim direction was not complied with, the petitioners filed C.C.No.1245 of 2011. The petitioners contend that the respondents have issued the notification, in violation of the specific directions contained in the G.O. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the petitioners were initially appointed, as Part-time Teachers and later on, they were converted as ‘Contract Residential Teachers’. According to them, instructions were issued by the State Project Director, vide proceedings dated 23.06.2011, prescribing a detailed procedure for selection and appointment of Teachers, and accordingly, the impugned notification was issued. It is stated that the case of the petitioners was also considered, but they were not selected, since they secured less number of marks. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The petitioners were initially appointed as Part-time Teachers and they were not subjected to any selection process. May be on account of the fact that the regular selections and appointments were not made, the petitioners were being continued as ‘Contract Residential Teachers’. The respondents have taken a policy decision to undertake recruitment of Teachers in all the institutions, in the district, other than those situated in the scheduled areas. As many as 83 vacancies were notified. The effort of the petitioners to get their services regularised, did not fructify. They approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.No.19081 of 2011, challenging this very notification and seeking regularisation. This Court clearly held that the petitioners cannot challenge the notification, and at the most, they can apply for the notified posts. Petitioners 1 and 3 are from O.C. Non-local category and they secured 46.25 and 40.98 marks. Last candidate, who was called for interview in the ratio of 1:3 in that category, secured 51:20. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner is an O.C. local candidate and she secured 33.41 marks. The last candidate in that category secured 44.75 marks. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any illegality on the part of the respondents either in issuing notification or in not selecting the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed and the C.C. is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:14.10.2011 GJ