HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PEITITON No. 5039 OF 2004 Dated 22nd January, 2010 Between: Urdu High School, rep., by its Correspondent, Ghulam Mohiuddin, S/o late Dastagir, aged about 48 years, Shakkarnagar, Nizamabad District ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and three others ………..Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: : Government Pleader for Education The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in not admitting 12 out of 17 posts into grant-in- aid based on the proposal submitted by respondent No.4 vide his letter dated 20-11-2000 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K. Muralidhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner – school was established in the year 1961. It was being managed by a Committee nominated by the Management of Nizam Sugars Limited. It received recognition by the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad vide proceedings dated 17-06-1976. With effect from 15-06-1978, the petitioner was upgraded to upper primary level. On the proposals sent by the Correspondent for sanction of additional sections and permission to create unaided posts, respondent No.4 vide his proceedings dated 26-07-1999 granted permission for opening of additional sections and for creation of the following unaided posts in addition to four SGT posts which were already admitted to grant-in-aid: 1. School Assistants - 4 2. SGTs - 12 3. T.P.Gr.II - 1 4. U.P.Gr.II - 1 The Correspondent of the petitioner – school sent proposals for conversion of 17 unaided posts to grant-in-aid. Respondent No.4 submitted the said proposals to the Commissioner and Director of School Education, respondent No.3 herein. The State Government – respondent No.1 on the recommendations of the High Level Committee issued G.O Ms. No. 143, dated 16-12-2003 admitting five out of 17 posts to grant-in-aid. The present writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondents in not admitting the balance 12 posts to grant-in-aid. As the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.4 did not contain proper reasons for not admitting the 12 posts to grant-in-aid, this Court called upon the respondents to file an additional counter affidavit. Accordingly, respondent No.4 filed the additional affidavit sworn to by him on 20-01-2010. In his additional counter affidavit, he has inter alia stated that as per the staff pattern envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.39, dated 03-05-2002, the minimum number of teachers in grant-in-aid posts for upper primary schools should be two school assistants, five SGTs, one Grade II Telugu Pandit and one Grade II Language Pandit, that based on the said G.O and also the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No. 143, dated 10-12-2003, the minimum aided posts for the upper primary school have been sanctioned to the petitioner – school by the Government, on the recommendation of High Level Committee. It is therefore the stand of the respondents that five posts were admitted to grant-in-aid strictly in accordance with the eligibility of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 39, dated 03-05-2002 and G.O.Ms.No.143, dated 16-12- 2003. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed existence of the above mentioned two GOs or the correctness of the stand taken by respondent No.4 in the additional counter affidavit. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that its claim for admission of the remaining 12 posts to grant-in-aid is based on any statutory provisions or administrative orders or executive instructions issued by the State Government. As the petitioner has not disputed the fact that its entitlement is governed by the above mentioned two GOs and the further fact that the number of teachers admitted to grant- in-aid satisfies the requirement of the above mentioned two GOs, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in admitting only five out of 17 posts recommended by respondent No.4 to grant-in-aid. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that respondent No.4 had himself made a recommendation for grant-in-aid vide his proposal dated 20-11-2000 and, therefore, it is not permissible for respondent No.4 to take a contra stand. This contention of the learned counsel cannot be accepted because the petitioner’s entitlement for admission to grant-in-aid depends upon the rules/instructions governing such admission and not on the recommendations submitted by the subordinate officers. The material discussed above clearly shows that the petitioner is entitled to admission to grant-in-aid only to the extent of five additional posts. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Before closing the case, I find it appropriate to observe that respondent No.4 has clearly exceeded his power in submitting proposals in excess of the petitioner’s eligibility. The officer who is responsible for sending such proposals is liable for appropriate disciplinary action. Respondent No.1 is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings in this regard after identifying the officer concerned for submitting proposals contrary to the orders governing the subject of admission of posts to grant-in-aid. Respondent No.1 shall report to the Court on the action taken against the responsible officer within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Registry shall thereupon place the report before this Court. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated: 22nd January, 2010 ks