IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13972 of 2008 Between: V. Radhakrishna Murthy S/o. Sreeramamurthy Ongole, Prakasam District, now residing at H.No. 30-265-S-6, Sudhanagar Colony, Old Saphil Guda, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole. 4 The SPKRSAVN Oriental High School Ongole, Prakasam District, Rep. by its Correspondent. .....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 particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the Orders of the 3rd Respondent in L.Dis.No. 919/B5/2007 dt. 10-11-2007 and in action of the 1st Respondent on my appeal aas arbitrary illegal, discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and Set aside the same and direct the Respondents to pass orders for payment of B.Ed Scale from the date of Sanction of the B.Ed Post in the light of the report of the Deputy Educational Officer dt. 27-6-2005 and the reinstatement orders in RC No. 3993/Se/73 dt. 11-7-1977 and grant such other relief as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.KASAJAGANMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was initially appointed as a Sanskrit Pandit on 07.07.1972 by Bharathiya Vidya Samithi. At that time, the school in which he was working had only primary section. Subsequently, Classes VI and VII were added. The institution was admitted to grant-in-aid and post of B.Ed. Assistant was sanctioned to it. The necessity to fill B.Ed. vacancy arose only when Class VII was started in the academic year 1976-77. Though the petitioner held qualification and was eligible to be appointed against the vacancy, he stood removed from service by that time. Therefore, the only B.Ed. vacancy was filled by appointing one Smt.Sarojini Devi. The petitioner was promoted to the post of B.Ed. Assistant only on 13.06.1988 against a newly sanctioned post. The petitioner made representations to the authorities in the School Education Department claiming that he is entitled to be treated as a B.Ed. Assistant with effect from 07.07.1972, since a clear vacancy was sanctioned from that date. He has also approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12607 of 1992. In pursuance of a direction issued therein, the Director of School Education, the second respondent, passed an order, dated 27.07.1993, rejecting the claim of the petitioner by stating four reasons. The petitioner claims to have preferred an appeal against the order, dated 27.07.1993. On the basis of the correspondence undertaken by him, the matter was examined afresh and through the order, dated 10.11.2007, the District Educational Officer, the third respondent herein, informed the petitioner that his request to sanction him the B.Ed. Assistant pay scale from 07.07.1972 cannot be accepted. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. The petitioner has undertaken prolonged correspondence and number of proceedings came to be issued at various stages in relation to his B.Ed. scale. The fact, however, remains that there was only one vacancy of B.Ed. Assistant in the School in which the petitioner worked, and it was filled in the academic year 1976-77 by one Smt.Sarojini Devi. It is not in dispute that by the time the vacancy came to be filled, the petitioner was out of service. Though he was reinstated into service subsequently, he never made a claim to that post. The occasion to promote the petitioner to the post of B.Ed. Assistant arose only in the year 1988 when a new vacancy was sanctioned. The Director of School Education passed a very well-reasoned order, furnishing cogent reasons as to how the request of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Though it is stated that the petitioner preferred an appeal, there is nothing on record to disclose that it was made to the prescribed authority, much less it was pursued. The impugned intimation appears to be in response to an endorsement made by the petitioner to a Minister. Notwithstanding these deficiencies, this Court had examined the matter in detail and finds that there is no basis for the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is directed that no further correspondence in this regard shall be entertained from the petitioner and the matter shall be treated as closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 04.07.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}