HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 33429 of 2011 DATED: 21.12.2011 Between: O. Meenakshi and 11 others .. Petitioners And E. Raji Reddy and either others .. Respondents O R D E R:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard Sri P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Smt. A. Padma, learned Standing Counsel for Intermediate Board for the 9th respondent. This writ petition is listed for admission after leave was obtained by this Court by orders dated 14.12.2011 in W.P.M.P. No. 39909 of 2011. The writ petition is however misconceived. It challenges the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 25.11.2009 in O.A. No. 979 of 2006 and batch. The batch of O.As. were filed by several applicants belonging to the category of School Assistants in the Education Department aggrieved by the alleged conduct of the official respondents therein in not filling up the posts of Junior Lecturers in terms of D.P.C. 2003, by recruitment by transfer. They claim to be qualified as per the relevant and applicable statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 302 Education Department, dated 30.12.1993. The Tribunal, by the common order impugned, disposed of the batch of the O.As. as follows: 1. G.O.Ms. No. 223, Higher Education Department, dated 18.09.2008 has only prospective effect and it has no retrospective effect; 2. The applicants are entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturers by transfer in the vacancies arose prior to G.O.Ms.No.223, Higher Education Department, dated 18.09.2008 within their quota. 3. The respondents shall consider the cases of the applicants for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturers by transfer as and when they decide to fill up the posts of Junior Lecturers by appointment by transfer, on account of approval of their names by D.P.C. in August, 2003, before making direct recruitment. The petitioners are non-teaching employees working in Government Junior Colleges and claim to have post- graduate decree qualifications and eligible for appointment to the post of Junior Lecturer by transfer; to be qualified and eligible both under the statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.302 Education Department, dated 30.12.1993 as well as the current statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.223, Higher Education Department dated 18.09.2008. Their grievance in the writ petition is that the Tribunal went beyond the scope of the lis before it and the relief claimed, in observing that the statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.223 have a prospective effect. The following analysis would show that this lis is presented on a fundamental misconception of facts and the relevant principles of law. In G.O.Ms. No.302, the Andhra Pradesh Intermediate Education Service Rules were issued. Rule-2 sets out the constitution of the service and category 8 therein mentions the post of Junior Lecturer. Rule-3 deals with the method of appointment. In respect of Junior Lecturer, there is a plurality of sources of recruitment specified i.e. by direct recruitment; by transfer from School Assistants in Category 1(b) of Class(C), Language Pandits including Hindi Pandits and Munshis Grade-I in Category-I of Class (D) of the re-issued Andhra Pradesh School Education Subordinate Service Rules; or by recruitment by transfer from any other service. It is also prescribed that 50% of the vacancies shall be filled by direct recruitment; 40% by recruitment by transfer from the aforementioned categories; and 10% by recruitment by transfer from any other service in the Education Department, among non-teaching staff of the Education Department. The writ petitioners fall within this 10% category. On 18.09.2008 in G.O.Ms.No.223, the State issued amendments to the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.302. Insofar as the Junior Lecturer category is concerned, the amendment ordains that direct recruitment shall be for 90% of the vacancies and recruitment by promotion from Superintendents in the Department of Intermediate Education and Collegiate Education as per inter se seniority would be 3%; that 3% vacancies shall be allocated to Senior Assistants and Senior Stenos in the Departments of Intermediate Education and Collegiate Education as per inter se seniority; and the remaining 4% shall be allocable to the category of Junior Assistants, Junior Stenos and Store Keepers in the Departments of Intermediate Education and Collegiate Education as per inter se seniority. As is apparent from the amendments issued in G.O.Ms. No. 223, feeder categories allocable 10% under the initial rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 302 has been restricted to fewer categories with specific percentages in the 10% earmarked for each category. It is the claim of the writ petitioners that they fall within the 10% earmarked for recruitment by transfer, under the amended rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.223 as well. Be that as it may. The 40% earmarked for School Assistants and other enumerated categories in G.O.Ms.No.302 has been substituted and varied by the amendments issued in G.O.Ms.No. 223. Therefore, the applicants (before the Tribunal) are no longer within the feeder categories under the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.223, for the posts of Junior Lecturers. As is apparent from the judgment of the Tribunal, the core contention of the applicants before (some of whom only are impleaded as respondents herein – all the applicants have not been impleaded as respondents in this writ petition) was that pursuant to the D.P.C. 2003 their cases were not considered for promotion / recruitment by transfer to the posts of Junior Lecturers. They urged that G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 18.09.2008 deleted the category of School Assistants from being a feeder category to the posts of Junior Lecturers and this amendment vide G.O.Ms.No. 223 has no retrospective intention; that these amendments have only a prospective effect and therefore, vacancies arising up to 18.09.2008 must be considered in the context of the rules initially issued in G.O.Ms.No.302 and therefore all the vacancies arising within the currency of the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.302 must be considered in accordance with those rules and the applicants being a legitimate and authorized feeder category prior to 18.09.2008 must be considered for those vacancies. On a true and fair construction of the amendments issued in G.O.Ms.No.223, the Tribunal rightly concluded that the amendment is prospective and have no retroactive reach and for vacancies arising prior to 18.09.2008, the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 302 alone are applicable. In the chronology of facts and circumstances adverted to supra and in the statutory dynamics referred to above, the grievance of the petitioners is misconceived; the common order of the Tribunal dated 25.11.2009 in O.A. No. 979 of 2006 and batch is impeccable and warrants no interference in judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, being without merits, is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. __________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 21.12.2011 __________________________ G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J bcj Note: Furnish C.C. in one week b/o bcj