THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.3251, 3315, 3604 AND 3623 OF 2004 COMMON ORDER Heard Sri Gangaiah Naidu Senior Counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for Education for the official respondents. 2. Since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is common and also common counter affidavit is filed by the official respondent, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The case of the petitioners in all the writ petitions, as stated in the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions is that the 1st respondent – Andhra Luthern College of Education, Guntur, represented by its Correspondent, issued advertisement in Eenadu Telugu Newspaper on 5.1.2003 in the main edition, call for applications for filling up the aided Lecturer posts in (1) Education – 4 posts, (2) Social Studies – 1 post, (3) Mathematics – 1 post and (4) Physical Sciences – 1 post; from Christian Minority B.C. ‘ C ‘ candidates only. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners in W.P.No.3251/2004 applied for the post of Lecturer in Education, the petitioners in W.P.No.3315/2004 applied for the post of Lecturer in Physical Sciences and Mathematics respectively and the petitioners in W.P.Nos.3604 and 3623 of2004, applied for the post of Lecturer in Social Studies. The further case of the petitioners is that the 1st respondent – Correspondent of the College, obtained permission from the 3rd respondent – the Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, for filling up the said posts. Consequent to their application for the said posts, the petitioners were issued interview memos calling upon them to appear for the interview before the Staff Selection Committee on 24.2.2003 in the college premises and they were directed to bring all the original certificates and they have mentioned the eligibility for the posts as per G.O.Ms.No.505 dated 16.11.1998. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the Staff Selection Committee. The said Committee finalized the selection and the 1st respondent – management, published the results in the notice in the notice board on the same day and the appointment orders were issued to the petitioners on 26.2.2003 appointing them to the respective posts, with a condition that the appointments are subject to approval by the 3rd respondent – Commissioner, and further directed them to report for duty immediately and on the very same day, they reported for duty. The petitioners are working in the aided posts from 26.2.2003. The 1st respondent submitted proposals individually on 2.5.2003 to the 3rd respondent – Commissioner, for approval of their selections. As there was no response from the 3rd respondent, the petitioners made representations. Therefore, aggrieved by the inaction of the 3rd respondent in approving the selections of the petitioners, the present writ petition is filed. 4. This court by interim orders dated 24.2.2004 in WPMP.No.4303/2004 in W.P.No.3251, 25.2.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.4375/2004 in W.P.No.3315/2004, dated 25.2.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.4375/2004 in W.P.No.3315, dated 27.2.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.4768/2004 in W.P.No.3623/2004 and by interim order dated 27.2.2004 in W.P.M.P.No.4745/2004 in W.P.No.3604/2004, directed the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioners. Pursuant to the interim orders of this court, the 3rd respondent considered the case of the petitioners for approval and rejected their cases by proceedings dated 21.7.2004. 5. By filing amendment petitions, the petitioners questioned the above proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 21.7.2004. 6. The 3rd respondent – Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad filed common counter affidavit in all the four writ petitions. In the said counter affidavit, while accepting the permission granted to the 1st respondent for filling up the respective aided posts, stated that the Correspondent, A.L. College of Education, Guntur has addressed a Lr.No.Esta/92/2002 dated 11.11.2002 to the Employment Officer, Professional and Executive Officer, T.Anjayya Bhavan, R.T.C. X road, Hyderabad stating that the Commissioner and Director of School Education has issued orders for filling up the posts and requested to sponsor Christian minority candidates. The Regional Employment Officer, Hyderabad in his Lr.No.2002/0506/05 dated 13.11.2002, has sponsored the names of 63 candidates for the post of Lecturer in Education and at bottom of the letter, it is written manually that ‘against the vacancy of Lecturer in Maths, candidates with prescribed qualifications are not available on the live register’. The Regional Employment Officer, Hyderabad, vide Lr.No.2002/0508/05 dated 13.11.2002, has sponsored the names of 11 candidates for the post of Lecturer in Social Studies. Further, the Regional Employment Officer, Hyderabad vide Lr.No.2002/0509/5, dated 13.11.2002 has sponsored the names of five candidates for the post of Lecturer in Physical Science. The Selection Committee consisting of the members, conducted the interviews on 24.2.2003 and selected the following candidates: I. Lecturer in Education: (4 posts) 1. Smt. Bala Chinnamma. 2. Sri B.Joseph Raju. 3. Smt. M.M.Sujatha and 4. Sri A.Inna Reddy. II. Lecturer in Social Studies (1 post): Kept in abeyance for want of clarification regarding the age limit in respect of the in service teacher candidates. III. Lecturer in Physical Science: (1 Post)- Smt. B. Mercy Madhura vani. IV. Lecturer in Mathematics: (1 post) Smt. B.Komala Devi. 7. The Selection Committee has resolved to seek clarification from the Commissioner and Director of School Education regarding the upper age limit in respect of in-service teacher candidates and till clarification is received, the selection for the post of Lecturer in Social Studies was kept in abeyance. The Correspondent, A.L. College of Education, Guntur, through his letter dated 2.4.2003, has submitted the proposals for approval of the names of the petitioners and on verification of the proposals, the following discrepancies were noticed: i. None of the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange have attended the interview for any of the posts notified. ii. The Principal of the said college has not sought for any clarification as resolved by the Selection Committee regarding the upper age limit of in- service teacher candidates. iii. The first candidate in the selection list for the posts of Lecturer in Education, Smt. M.Bala Chinnamma was not given appointment and no reasons were mentioned. iv. Though the selection for the post of Lecturer in Social Studies kept in abeyance by the Selection Committee till the clarification is received from the Commissioner and Director of School Education on upper age limit for in- service teacher candidates, the Correspondent, A.L. College of Education, Guntur has issued appointment orders to two candidates viz., Mr. G.V. Solomon Raju as Lecturer in Social Studies and Mrs. G.Anne Anita as Lecturer in Social Studies, as against one post permitted by the Commissioner and Director of School Education and notified. v. The Correspondent, A.L. College of Education, Guntur has informed that originally only three posts of Lecturer in Education were sanctioned, but by mistake they have taken permission to fill up (4) posts of Lecturer in Education. Out of (4) posts, one post of Lecturer is meant for Social Studies. Hence, (2) candidates have been appointed for the post of Lecturer in Social Studies. No permission to that extent was obtained from the Commissioner and Director of School Education and the Correspondent has unilaterally appointed the two candidates without approval of Selection Committee and obtaining permission from Commissioner and Director of School Education for the 2nd post of Social Studies. vi. Corrections were made in the marks awarded by the members of the Selection Committee. 8. In view of the above, original records from A.L. College of Education, Guntur pertaining to recruitment of Lecturers, has been obtained through the District Educational Officer, Guntur. Enquiry Officer has submitted his report vide letter Rc.No.Spl.JDVE/Enquiry/2003-2 dated 9.2.2004 on the recruitment to the posts of Lecturer in the said college. The observations of the Enquiry Officer are as follows: 1. As seen from the connected records, the Correspondents violated all the norms and recruitment procedure in the matter of appointment to various posts. 2. The Correspondent has not given opportunity to all the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange to appear before the Staff Selection Committee as per rules. 3. Minutes of the Selection Committee have not been followed. 4. Out of 4 posts of Lecturer in Education, for which the Management selected 4 candidates, the Correspondent appointed two candidates only against the posts of Lecturer in Education and instead, he has appointed two un- selected candidates to the posts of Lecturer in social studies without being selected by the Selection Committee. 5. The Correspondent has informed orally to the Enquiry Officer that he was basically depending on the principal and he did not verify the records whether call letters sent to all the candidates and the discrepancy against the pots of Lecturers in Education and Social Studies. 6. The Principal has orally informed the Enquiry Officer that there are certain lapses in discharging duties as Principal and pleaded for excuse. 7. Both of them have orally informed the Enquiry Officer that they are ready to rectify the defects and therefore requested to permit them to seek rectification orders from the Commissioner and Director of School Education. 9. As irregularities made in recruitment to the posts of Lecturer are proved, instructions have been issued to the Management, of the college vide Commissioner and Director of School Education proceedings Rc.No.18555/N2- 3/2003-2 dated 22.3.2004, to replace Dr.Ch.John Babu, Principal, A.L. College of Education, Guntur. Accordingly, the Principal was kept under suspension by Management. Aggrieved by the same, the said Principal filed writ petition before this court. Subsequently, the principal was taken into service and his cadre was reduced to the post of a Lecturer. Show cause notice was also issued to the Correspondent of the 1st respondent – College by the 3rd respondent in Proc.Rc.No.1855/N2- 3/2003-1 dated 24.3.2004. The Correspondent submitted his explanation vide letter dated 21.4.2004. 10. It is further stated that equal opportunity to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange and applied in response to the paper advertisement, was not given by the 1st respondent. The candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange were deprived of opportunity of competing in the selection for the posts of Lecturers. As verified from the service certificates produced by all the candidates, except Sri G.V.Solomon Raju, petitioner in W.P.No.3623/2004, have been working in un-aided posts in various colleges under the management of 1st respondent . The corrections made in the marks lists awarded by the Selection Committee Members reveal that the Correspondent/Principal of the college have deliberately made such corrections without the knowledge of the Selection Committee Members, to enable to select the candidates who are already working in un-aided posts in various colleges under the same management. The Correspondent, of the 1st respondent, has not followed the resolutions of the Selection Committee and acted on his own in the appointment to the posts of Lecturer in Social Studies and did not care to address to the Commissioner and Director of School Education for clarification as suggested by the Selection Committee. Relying on the judgments of this court dated 13.12.2005 in W.P.No.26554/2005 and order dated 19.12.2005 in W.A.No.2407/2005 it is sought to contend that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the inaction on the part of the respondents and it is the prerogative of the management to take steps for approval of the selections. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 11. The 3rd respondent also filed additional counter affidavit, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit and hence, the same are not being reproduced. 12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners mainly argued that under 12(8) of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993, the proposals sent to the competent authority for approval, shall be approved within two months from the date of receipt of proposals and in case no such approval is granted within two months, it is deemed that the approval is granted. In the present case, the management has sent proposals on 2.5.2003 seeking approval and the same but the competent authority, has not approved the proposals within the stipulated time of two months as envisaged under Rule 12(8) of the Rules and hence the proposals that were sent are deemed to have been approved and the 3rd respondent is not justified in rejecting the approvals at this length of time. He submitted that the subject matter in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court reported in J.PAUL JAYA CHANDRAN v. GOVERNMENT OF A.P.[1], wherein also in the very same college, when the appointments of Lectures made by the Staff Selection Committee were not approved within two months and were rejected on the grounds of irregularities, this court, considering Rule 12(8) of the Rules and by setting aside the impugned orders therein, granted the benefit to the petitioners therein under deeming provision and allowed the writ petition. Therefore, he sought to apply the principle laid down in the said judgment to the present facts and circumstances of the case. He further contended that even assuming that there are certain irregularities in the process of selection, the same cannot be attributed to the petitioners, and they possess the requisite qualification and were selected in the interview conducted by the duly constituted Staff Selection Committee and since 2003 they were working and, therefore, their cases cannot be rejected for the fault of the Management. With these contentions, he sought to set aside the impugned orders dated 21.7.2004 and direct the 3rd respondent to ratify the selection of the petitioners. 13. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. The learned Government Pleader also produced the relevant record before this court for perusal during arguments and again taken back the record. 14. From the material on record, the admitted facts are that the 1st respondent had prior permission for filling up the posts of Lecturers in various subjects and accordingly issued advertisement and the petitioners have applied for the posts. The case of the petitioners is that they were selected and their names were published in the notice board and the selections are subject to approval of the competent authority. The petitioners are relying on Rule 12(8) of the Rules. The same is extracted as under for better appreciation: “(8) All appointments made either to teaching or non- teaching staff by aided or un-aided institutions shall be subject to approval of the competent authority. For this purpose the educational agency shall inform the competent authority within one month of the selection. The competent authority shall grant approval unless the selection has been in violation of these rules. If the approval is not granted within two months from the date of receipt of the proposals in respect of unaided posts, the approval shall be deemed to have been granted. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the educational agency to remind the competent authority one month after the initial communication, if no approval is received. The burden of proof of having communicated the selection to the competent authority shall lie with the educational agency.” 15. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that after the receipt of proposal within one month of the selection, the competent authority shall grant approval within two months from the date of receipt of proposals, unless the selection has been in violation of the rules and if the approval is not granted within two months in respect of un-aided posts, it shall be deemed to have been approved. This court by interpreting Rule 12(8) in W.A.Nos.604 and 950 of 1999 dated 23.11.1999 held that the deeming provision is applicable even to aided posts. A perusal of Rule 12(8) further clarifies that such deeming provision applies only if the selection has not been in violation of the Rules. 16. In the present case, as per the averments made in the counter affidavit and also as per the impugned orders dated 21.7.2004, several irregularities have been noticed, which are stated in the counter affidavit viz., the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange were not given opportunity; that there are correction in the marks given by the Selection Committee; that without seeking clarification with regard to upper age limit for in-service teacher candidates, the posts of Lecturer in Social Studies were filed up and further, though three posts of Lecturer in Education were available, permission is taken to fill up four posts. The other irregularities stated in the above counter affidavit are clear and needs no further reiteration. Further, based on the said irregularities, enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 9.2.2004 and the said irregularities were found to be correct and accordingly the official respondents initiated action against the erring officials in the 1st respondent collage. Mentioning the irregularities pointed out in the enquiry report, pursuant to the interim order of this court, the 3rd respondents by proceedings dated 21.7.2004, rejected the case of the petitioners for granting approval of their selections. 17. Further in the judgment relied on by the counsel for the petitioners, this court found that the irregularities pertain to not following reservations, non-granting of minority status to the institution, not following guide lines under certain G.Os. The said grounds were found to be vague and contrary to the judgment of the Apex court and this court and further the official respondents failed to place any material before the court to show any fundamental infirmity or irregularity in the selection of the petitioners. But the facts in the present case are different. The official respondents have placed the material before this court to substantiate the grounds for rejection. Therefore, the deeming provision under Rule 12(8) of the Rules, cannot be extended to the petitioners herein. 18. Having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavit and the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------------- 08--02--2011 [1] 1996(1) LAD 370