IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31972 of 2011 Between: P.Ranga Swamy … Petitioner and The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, A.P. Secretriat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.31972 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the post of the petitioner as Attender un-aided into grant in aid based on the High Level Committee recommendations in its letter R.No.1452/D2-1/1994, dated 28.10.1994, on par with the similarly situated persons working in the 5th respondent’s school and other schools, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to admit the post of the petitioner Attender (un-aided) into grant in aid based on the high level committee recommendations and release all consequential benefits to the petitioner on par with similarly situated staff working in the 5th respondent’s school and other schools vide G.O.Ms.No.144, dated 01.10.2004 and Government Memo dated 30.07.2009 and inview of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP. No.9541 of 2007 on 06.09.2011. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as an Attender in an un-aided post on 15.06.1985 in the 5th respondent’s School, Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyala High School, and he is working as such. While the things stood thus, the Director of School Education issued letter dated 06.04.1994, creating various posts without aid, including the post of Attender and the 5th respondent’s School sent the proposals to the authorities concerned for admitting the various posts against the grant-in-aid post. Vide G.O.Ms. No.2, dated 11.01.2005, the Government rejected the case of the petitioner, along with the cases of the various institutions, which are similar to that of the 5th respondent’s School on the ground that the Government imposed ban on recruitment. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the 5th respondent’s School much prior to the imposition of ban and the proposal for grant-in-aid was also initiated prior to imposition of ban. He also brought to the notice of this Court that in recent past, the Apex Court categorically held that imposition of ban is only prospective in nature. He also submitted that this Court in W.P. No.14861 of 2011 and batch, while disposing of the batch of writ petitions, passed common order on 29.11.2011, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (Citation 1 supra) and in view of the judgments of this Court in W.P.No:19264 of 2011, dated 7.6.2011 and W.P.No:21755 of 2011, dated 10.2.2011 I feel it just and proper to direct the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners in all the writ petitions for admission into grant in aid on par with the case of Sri D.Musal Reddy and P.Kasi Reddy of Sri Vivekananda Gurukula Vidyalayam High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District conferring similar benefits as was done in G.O.Ms.No.:144, School Education (PS.I) Department, dated 01.10.2004, after due notice to all the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. With the above direction, all the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs.” In view of the above, he submits that the petitioner herein is also one who is working in the 5th respondent’s School as an Attender and therefore, he is also entitled to the similar benefit. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also following the aforesaid order, this writ petition is disposed of as under. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant-in-aid, existing in the 5th respondent’s School and provide him all the service benefits, if he is eligible, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.12.2011 LSK