THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.19255 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the proceedings of the second respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid posts by the impugned proceedings in Lr.Rc.No.Admn.I-B-3/981/2004 dated 02.02.2005, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners into grant-in-aid posts with effect from the date of their initial appointment. Under the impugned order dated 02.02.2005, the recommendations made by the Correspondent of Nrupathunga Junior College, Hyderabad, seeking regularisation of services of the petitioners against available grant-in-aid posts, was rejected, on the ground that there is a ban of sanctioning grant-in-aid posts and that when the petitioners had undergone process of selection the representative of the Government was not available in the committee. The facts are not much in dispute. It appears the petitioners were appointed after the third respondent college was admitted to grant-in-aid vide G.O.Ms.No.1155, Education Department, dated 19.12.1977. Thereafter, due to retirement or otherwise of certain staff members, vacancies of non-teaching staff had arisen and the petitioners were appointed against those vacancies. While that being so, the Correspondent of the third respondent college recommended absorption of the petitioners against the available grant-in-aid posts and the same was rejected under the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in this regard, relied upon the order dated 21.10.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.16472 of 2006, wherein it was held as under: “The claim of the petitioner is only for absorption of his services in the aided vacancy from unaided post. The procedure contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.4.1994 is applicable only for direct recruits and not for absorption from unaided to aided. The instructions issued by the Director of School Education vide proceedings dated 16.3.1990 indicates that the aided post has to be filled by absorption of senior most unaided Teaching and Non-Teaching staff of aided institutions and promotions from feeder category. Now at this length of time, after lapse of three decades, petitioner cannot be asked to undergo the process of selection. The averment of the petitioner that Government had approved appointments of several similarly placed candidates from unaided to aided posts as per the proposals submitted by the management is not disputed. Petitioner had referred to several such instances stating that vide proceedings of the District Educational Officer in Rc.No.1910/C4/2002 dated 19.10.2002; Rc.No.1929/C3/2003 dated 3.1.2004 and Rc.No.2677/C3/99 dated 13.12.1999 services of B.Purnachandra Rao, Secondary Grade Teacher in A.S.S.T. Aided Elementary School, S.Konda; Smt.C.Madhavi, P.V.R. Aided Upper Primary School, Dwarakapadu, Martur mandal and Sri P.S.H.Srinivasa Rao, V.P.V.R. Aided Upper Primary School, Dwarakapadu, Martur Mandal, respectively were absorbed. However, such a benefit was not extended to the petitioner. As per the staffing pattern fixed under G.O.Ms.No.2063 dated 25.8.1969, there were three posts of Attenders and three posts of Peons which are now re- designated as Record Assistants and Attenders and the said posts were admitted to grant-in-aid. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that there were no vacancies in the cadre of Junior Assistant. In fact, management also informed the vacancy position and staff working from time to time vide letter dated 7.12.2004. As per the said letter dated 7.12.2004, one vacancy of Lower Division Clerk, one vacancy of Typist and three posts of Attenders and three posts of Peons were vacant, which are permitted to grant-in-aid. Hence, rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground of non- availability of vacancy is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is seeking absorption into already available aided vacancy. Further, the respondents could not have rejected the case of petitioner on the ground that the post, which had arisen, was in High School, and petitioner was appointed in Junior College. In fact, the High School and Junior College are under one roof and under one administration. The Multipurpose High School after 1969 has been made into 10+2 structure.” Further, in the instant case, it appears the petitioners also satisfied the criteria of conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212, dated 22.04.1994. Since vacancies are available the petitioners are entitled to regularisation of their services automatically. Therefore, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education that the petitioners were not selected by properly constituted selection committee has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the fact that the ban of recruitment has no relevance and the guidelines laid down in G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 are applicable to the case of the petitioners, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption/regularisation of services from the date of their eligibility i.e., either under G.O.Ms.No.212 dated 22.04.1994 or from the date of recommendations made by the Correspondent of the third respondent college. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.12.2010 va