IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No :13348 of 2000 Between: The State of A.P., rep by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND B.Bala Prasad, Resource Teacher, Govt.High School, No.2, Adilabad. ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.13348 of 2000 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar) This writ petition by the State questions the order of the Anhdra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.6023 of 1997 dated 17.11.1999. Under the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to treat the respondent herein (applicant before the Tribunal) as eligible to be considered on par with the teachers appointed under the A.P. Educational Service Rules, and as such, the respondent is entitled to be considered for promotion as School Assistant. The respondent herein was appointed as Resource Teacher, under the Integrated Education Scheme on 23.9.1992 and later, his services were regularized with effect from 30.9.1992. Under the clarification issued by the Director of School Education in Rc.No.2/IED/SCERT/92, dated 22.2.1994, it was clarified that the Resource Teachers, appointed under the Scheme of Integrated Education, are entitled to regular scale of SGBT Teachers and the instructions have been issued in the proceedings dated 20.11.1993, that the corresponding scale in terms of G.O (P) No.162 dated 20.5.1993 relating to SGBT shall also apply to all the Resource Teachers appointed under Integrated Education Scheme. The said clarification also declared that all Rules relating to Government Teachers i.e SGBT shall also apply to Resource Teachers. Based on the above, the applicant, the respondent herein, had filed the O.A before the Tribunal, seeking a direction that he is entitled to be promoted as School Assistant with effect from 16.6.1997, the date, on which the respondents 5 to 8 in the O.A were promoted as School Assistants. The contention of the respondent was that the said private party respondents 5 to 8 in the O.A are juniors to him and when they could be promoted as School Assistants, the respondent is also entitled to the said promotion. The petitioner resisted the said O.A by contending that the respondent is a Resource Teacher and not a regular SGBT teacher and since there is no channel of promotion available to a Resource Teacher, he cannot be considered for promotion of School Assistant. It was further contended that the respondents 5 to 8 in the O.A are regular SGBT teachers and though they are appointed subsequent to the respondent herein, in view of the channel of promotion available to them, they were considered and promoted as School Assistants, but that by itself could not give any enforceable right in favour of the respondent. It was also pointed out that the clarification that the Resource Teachers under the scheme are also to be governed by all Rules, which apply to the Government Teachers; as mentioned in the clarification of the Director, was later cancelled. The Tribunal, however, after considering the submissions on either side, was of the view that since the Resource Teachers are treated on par with the SGBT teachers, they are also entitled to be considered for promotion as School Assistants on par with the SGBT teachers and consequently gave the directions to the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent. Accordingly, questioning the aforesaid order, the present writ petition is filed. We have heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Sri M.Ratna Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners has placed before us the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education in Rc.No.2/B1/IED/SCERT/92, dated 8.9.1997, whereby the operation of the orders of the Commissioner, earlier issued dated 22.2.1994, were cancelled. For the sake of convenience, it is appropriate to extract the said portion. “A part of the proceedings cited is hereby Cancelled “All the rules apply to the government teaches (SGBTS) will also apply to the resource teachers. He is requested to take action accordingly.”” The learned Government Pleader has also submitted that the respondent admittedly is appointed under the Central Government Scheme and as long as the scheme is continued, he is treated on par with the SGBT Teachers and they have been extended the pay scales. But the Tribunal was not justified in treating the respondent and other resource teachers as SGBT teachers itself; inasmuch as their method of selection and the eligibility is different from that of SGBT teachers and consequently, the resource teachers are not born out on the cadre of SGBT teaches and others, as that of the cadre of the Government Teachers. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that one of the Resource Teachers similarly placed like the respondent, namely Mr.B.Srinivas, was promoted to the post of School Assistant, vide proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, in Rc.No.14263/M1/97, dated 17.1.1997. He therefore, contends that the respondent is entitled to the similar treatment. The learned counsel also placed reliance on G.O.Rt.No.118, Education (Prog-1) Department, dated 25.2.2003, wherein the Resource Teachers, appointed during the year 1992 under Rule 10 (a) (1) of APES Service Rules under the Scheme of Integrated Education for Disabled Children, shall be regularized and the individuals be placed on promotion from the date of their joining in the relevant posts under Rule 16 (a) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules by treating the notification/paper advertisement describing the qualification, age, scale of pay as Adhoc Rules. He further submits that by virtue of the said decision of the State, all the posts of Resource Teachers filled up under Rule 10 (a) (1) of A.P. Educational Service Rules stand regularized and since admittedly, they have been given SGBT scales and all benefits, there is no reason for denying promotional benefits to them. We have considered the aforesaid submissions. A conjoint reading of the orders issued by the Government from time to time including the clarification given by the Director of School Education, dated 8.9.1997, as extracted above, as well as G.O.Rt.No.118, dated 25.2.2003, referred to above, clearly show that Resource Teachers are recruited under the specific scheme of the Central Government’s Scheme for Integrated Education for Disabled Children and the scheme is continued with the Central Government assistance to the extent of 100%. The status conferred on the Resource Teachers is declared on par with the SGBT teachers in the matter of pay scales etc. Further, the clarification issued by the Commissioner, as extracted above, shows that the specific declaration to treat these Resource Teachers on par with SGBT teachers for application of all Rules was cancelled and in fact, the G.O.Rt.No.118, dated 25.2.2003 shows that the Rules relating to qualification, age and scale of pay of Resource Teachers were treated as Adhoc Rules. Therefore, by it’s pre-supposition, the Resource Teachers are not governed by the same Rules of the A.P. Educational Service Rules, which govern the SGBT Teachers. There is no channel of promotion available to the Resource Teachers in promotional post of School Assistant and in that view of the matter, the impugned direction of the Tribunal to treat the respondent on par with the SGBT teachers for the purpose of the promotion as School Assistant is not justified as it would be contrary to the Rules. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that one Mr.B.Srinivas was promoted as School Assistant also appears to have been factually unsustainable, inasmuch, as by the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education in Rc.No.280/B1/IED/SCERT/97, dated 8.2.2000, the said order of promotion was cancelled, after noticing that the said promotion itself was wrongly ordered. In view of that, it cannot be said that any Resource Teacher is promoted as School Assistant. Further, the relief was claimed on par with the respondents 5 to 8 who were regularly appointed as SGBT Teachers. The respondent cannot seek parity with the said respondents 5 to 8 It is also contended that while the Tribunal decided the O.A, based on G.O.Ms.No.40, dated 7.2.1992 was in operation for relief as to the rules and method of appointment under the A.P. Educational Service Rules, but later the said G.O was set aside. However, even the latest rules framed by the Government under G.O.Ms.No.11, School Education (SCR.II) Department, dated 23.1.2009, also show that there is no such channel of promotion available to the Resource Teachers. In that view of the matter, the impugned direction of the Tribunal to consider the cases of the Resource Teachers for the promotion as School Assistant on par with the SGBT teachers cannot be sustained. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside. However, it is also made clear that this order will not preclude the respondent from seeking appropriate benefit from the Government with regard to his promotional avenues and other benefits as Resource Teacher, in view of the fact that he is working for a considerable length of time. There shall be no order as to the costs. _________________________ JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH _______________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR Date:02.09.2009 Mrb/kvr