IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION Nos. 3820 and 7769 of 2006 W.P.NO.3820 of 2006 Between: 1 Ashok Kumar Kharat, s/o Satwaji, V.V.Kanyashala, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 2 Smt.Suchitra Kunde d/o Sridhar Kunde, V.V.Kanyashala, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 3 Smt.Meena Kulkarni, d/o Kishan Rao, V.V.Kanyashala, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 4 Smt.Sulabha Paithanka Lathakar, d/o Keshava Rao Lathka, V.V.Kanyashala, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 5 Smt.Sunita Chincholikar, d/o Nana Rao, V.V.Kanyashala, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. 6 Smt.Anuradha Yadhav, d/o Hanumanth Rao Yadhav, V.V.Kanyashala, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. ..... PET IT IONER(S) AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary to the Government, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 4 The Vivek Vardhani Educational Society, represented by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent, 5-1-524, Vaman Naik Marg Jambagh, Hyderabad-500 194. .....RESPONDENT (S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction especially one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in X.N.Dis.No.19573/B3/05 dated 3-9-2005, X.N.No.1007/B3/05 dated 3-9-2005 and X.N.Dis.No.14088/B3/05 dated 6-9-2005 of the 3rd respondent as being without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void by holding D.O.Lr.No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4 dated 20-10-2004 as being inapplicable to the petitioners and consequently direct the respondents to issue orders of absorption into grant-in-aid posts as per the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent with all consequential and other attendant beneﬁts as regards seniority, arrears of pay and such other beneﬁts and pass suchother and further order or orders as may be found expedient or the interests of justice warrant. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.VENKAT SASTRY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION W.P.No.7769 of 2006 Between: Neeta Likapally, w/o Anil P.Limaya, V.V.Girls High Schools, Gowliguda, Hyderabad. ..... PET IT IONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 4 The Vivek Vardhani Educational Society rep., by its Secretary-cum-Correspondent, 5-1-524, Vaman Naik Marg, Jambagh, Hyderabad-194. .....RESPONDENT (S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, speciﬁcally one in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondents herein to absorb the petitioner into grant-in-aid vacancies as per the proposals sent by the 4th respondent on 1-8-2003 by declaring the proceedings in D.O.Lr.No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dt.20-10-2004 as being in applicable and inoperative in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned with all consequential and other attendant beneﬁts as regards seniority, arrears of pay and suchother beneﬁts and pass such other order or orders as may be found expedient or the interest of justice warrant. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.Y.N.VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.3820 & 7769 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: The issue that arises for consideration in both these two writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in W.A.No.1578 of 2005 and batch, wherein it was held that the Memo issued by the respondents does not have the eﬀect of stultifying the process of recruitment initiated by the management of the private schools prior to 20.10.2004. It was further held that “if the decision contained in Memo dated 20.10.2004 is read in the light of the above interpretation of the relevant rules, we do not have any hesitation to approve the view taken by the learned Single Judges that the ban imposed on the recruitment against existing vacancies is not applicable to the cases in which permission had already been granted by the District Educational Oﬃcer or the Regional Joint Director.” Heard both sides and perused the material made available on record. In the cases on hand also, the process had begun and recommendations were made prior to 20.10.2004, therefore not considering the cases of petitioners for absorption into grand-in-aid posts is arbitrary and illegal. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider, approving the proposals sent by District Educational Oﬃcer prior to 20.10.2004 and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioners. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.9.2008 DA THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.Nos.3820 & 7769 of 2006 17.9.2008