THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.32133 of 2010 ORDER: Sri Gandhi Andhra Jathiya Maha Vidyalaya High School, the 5th respondent, is an Educational Institution, admitted to grant-in-aid. Several posts of School Assistants, which were admitted to grant-in- aid, became vacant, in the year 2004. After obtaining the permission from the concerned authorities, the institution issued a notification inviting applications. The petitioner submitted an application for the post of School Assistant (Science). A Selection Committee, as required under the prescribed procedure, was constituted, and the petitioner was selected and appointed as Teacher. The Institution submitted the proposals to the District Educational Officer, West Godavari, the 4th respondent, through proper channel i.e. the Deputy Educational Officer, for approval. The 4th respondent, in turn, submitted the matter for approval to the Regional Joint Director, Kakinada, the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent addressed a letter on 09.12.2004, to the Commissioner of School Education, the 2nd respondent herein, seeking clarification and instructions. He stated that the Government issued a memo dated 20.10.2004, prohibiting creation of new posts or appointment of teachers in aided institutions and wanted to know whether appointment of the petitioner can be approved. There was no response from the 2nd respondent. The petitioner made repeated representations to the 4th respondent and he addressed a letter, dated 13.04.2009 to the 2nd respondent, through the 3rd respondent, explaining the matter in detail. It was mentioned that the permission was accorded for filling up the posts, much before the ban was imposed and that appointment was made strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The 3rd respondent forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent, through a covering letter dated 16.12.2009. Since nothing is forthcoming, the petitioner has approached this Court. The petitioner contends that her selection and appointment were made, much before the ban came into force, and once the approving authority was satisfied that the prescribed procedure was followed, the approval ought to have been accorded. A detailed counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. The only ground mentioned for not approving the appointment of the petitioner is, the ban imposed by the Government through memo, dated 20.10.2004. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The permission of the Government is necessary for an Educational Institution admitted to grant-in-aid. Several posts have fallen vacant in the 5th respondent - Institution and it sought permission. It is a matter of record that permission was accorded, by the District Educational Officer, as is evident from the letter dated 13.04.2009, addressed by the 4th respondent to the 2nd respondent. The relevant portion reads as under: “The B.Ed. Assistants dealing with Science and S.S. were retired. Hence, one B.Ed. Assistant post with science and one B.Ed. Asst. post with S.S. have fallen vacant with effect from 01.11.2003. The same have to be filled up. The Deputy Educational Officer has submitted that there is no eligible candidate to get promotion to above B.Ed. Assistant posts and there are no unaided posts in the school. Further he has stated that the above B.Ed. Assistant posts have to be filled with OC (W) roster points since they are the first point in that category. Hence, permission was accorded to the Correspondent, S.G.A.J.M.High School, Eluru to fill up the above posts with OC(W) roster point.” He has further stated that a Committee was constituted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Government and that the petitioner was selected. It is no doubt true that the Government imposed ban on appointment of teachers in aided institutions through memo dated 20.10.2004. This Court held in several cases that a ban would operate prospectively and it does not affect the selections that were already made in accordance with the procedure prior to the imposition of ban. There is absolutely no justification for the respondents in not according approval for the appointment of the petitioner. More than six years have elapsed, since the petitioner was appointed. The matter cannot brook any further delay. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and respondents 2, 3 and 4 are directed to take necessary steps to accord approval for the appointment of the petitioner as School Assistant (Science) in the 5th respondent-Institution, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:11.10.2011 GJ