IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31340 of 2011 Between: Sri Lakshmi Narsimha High School and another … Petitioner And The Government of A.P. and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31340 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring inaction of the 1st respondent in passing orders vide Government Memo No.7816/PS-1/2004-1, dated 30.12.2004 for absorption of the 2nd petitioner from unaided to aided post in 1st petitioner’s management in the clear vacant aided post as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the 1st respondent to consider for absorption of the 2nd petitioner as a School Assistant from unaided to aided post from the date of vacancy in the 1st petitioner’s management in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in S.L.P. No.9541 of 2007 and batch dated 06.09.2011, with all consequential benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the 1st petitioner in this writ petition is the Sri Lakshmi Narsimha H i g h School, Mandalur Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District, represented by its Correspondent, T.Srinivasulu and the 2nd petitioner is one T.V.Rangacharyulu, working as School Assistant (Unaided) in the 1st petitioner’s school. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking direction to the 1st respondent, Government of A.P., to pass appropriate orders pursuant to the Memo dated 30.12.2004 absorbing the 2nd petitioner against the aided post in the 1st petitioner’s school. The case of the 2nd petitioner is that he was appointed as School Assistant in the 1st petitioner’s school through the process of selection, in accordance with law, against the unaided post and the issue of his appointment for approval has been taken up by the authorities by proceedings dated 15.10.1997. The 3rd respondent, Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kadapa, instructed the 4th respondent, District Educational Officer, to submit the proposal for approval of selection for filling up of the post of the School Assistant in the 1st petitioner’s school of the 2nd petitioner in terms of the Government Orders. Based on the proposal sent by the 1st petitioner’s school, the Mandal Educational Officer vide his letter dated 29.10.2002 sent the proposal to the 4th respondent, who vide his proceedings dated 29.08.2003 rejected the proposal of the management for absorption of the 2nd petitioner in the 1st petitioner’s school. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, Commissioner and Director of School Education, and the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings dated 09.06.2004 rejected the case of the petitioners holding that the 2nd petitioner is a Social Studies School Assistant (Unaided) and he is not entitled for absorption as against the post of Science School Assistant (Aided) as he is not qualified to hold the post of School Assistant (Science). Assailing the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the 1st respondent, Government of A.P., who vide his letter dated 30.12.2004 informed the 2nd petitioner that his case is posted for hearing on 05.01.2005 and the matter is still pending before the 1st respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all these years, the Government kept the matter pending not because that the 2nd petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of School Assistant and not because that there is no aided post in the 1st petitioner’s school but because the matter has been pending for the reason that the Government has imposed the ban vide its Memo dated 20.10.2004. Therefore, the appointment of the 2nd petitioner in the 1st petitioner’s school has not been approved. He further submitted that in the recent past, the Apex Court had adjudicated the similar matters finally in the case of GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS v. SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS[1] holding that in the cases of appointments made, prior to imposition of ban on recruitment, issuance of Government memo dated 20.10.2004, imposing ban, has no application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for consideration of his revision. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that in view of the ban imposed by the Government in the matter of recruitment to the post of School Assistant, the authorities have not passed any orders in respect of the case of the petitioners and therefore, the matter is pending with the 1st respondent. But, however, he does not dispute the fact that by virtue of the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above, wherein it is held that the Government imposed ban in the memo has no application in respect of the appointments made prior to the issuance of the ban memo. In view of the above, the point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to for consideration of his case in the revision? Admittedly, the 2nd petitioner was appointed as School Assistant in the 1st petitioner’s School and the 1st petitioner’s school sought for approval of the appointment of the 2nd petitioner. The matter is considered by the original authority and the appellate authority, who rejected the case of the petitioners on various grounds and ultimately, the matter is pending with the 1st respondent in the form of revision and it is pending from 2004 onwards, which is clear from the letter dated 30.12.2004. In that view of the matter, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the revision and also on the representation made by the management, pending with him, taking into consideration the judgment referred to above one supra, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 28.11.2011 LSK [1] (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 556