THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26010 OF 2007 Dt: 25th March 2008 Between: K. Ramesh …Petitioner and The Management rep.by its Manager & Correspondent, Aided High School, Srungarapuram, Bapatla, Guntur District And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 26010 OF 2007 O R D E R: The petitioner is working as Grade II Telugu Pandit, in the 1st respondent School. The post of Head Master of that school, fell vacant. Through his order dated 8.10.2007, the District Educational Officer, Guntur, the 2nd respondent, placed the petitioner in charge of the post of Head Master, to look after the day-to-day administration. Based on that, the Manager/ Correspondent of the school, the 1st respondent, issued an order dated 24.10.2007, appointing the petitioner as In-charge Head Master. On the next day, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.10.2007, expressing his inability to accept the assignment. This writ petition is filed, alleging that the 1st respondent is refusing to permit him to work in the school as Grade II Telugu Pandit, on the ground that the petitioner must obtain modified orders from the 2nd respondent. Reference is made to the exchange of notices, etc. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit, denying the allegations of the petitioner. It is stated that being the senior most teacher, the petitioner was under obligation to function as In-charge Head Master, and disobedience of the same, has resulted in hardship. It is also urged that the petitioner did not report to duty, ever since 27.10.2007. On behalf of respondents 2 and 3, a counter affidavit is filed, stating that on account of refusal, on the part of the petitioner, to work as In-charge Head Master, revised orders were issued on 13.2.2006. The various steps that have been taken by respondent No.2, to enquire into the matter, were also referred to. Heard Sri Ghanta Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and learned Government Pleader for School Education, for respondents 2 and 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the senior most teacher, in the 1st respondent school, and is working as Grade II Telugu Pandit. In these days of squabble for promotion, ad hoc or otherwise, the petitioner declined the offer to function as In-charge Head Master, when the same was made by 2nd respondent, through his proceedings dated 8.10.2007, and the consequential proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 24.10.2007. The matter should have rested at that, and the petitioner ought to have been permitted to function as Grade II Telugu Pandit. The various events in this case would, in a way, reflect the functioning of the Government and Aided schools, in the State. Even according to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Head Master. No reference is made to any steps, to ensure that a qualified eligible person is appointed to the school. It appears to be the view of the Government that institutions would function on their own accord. That, however, is a different aspect. In spite of the interim orders passed by this court, the respondents, and in particular the 1st respondent, did not permit the petitioner, to work in the institution in that capacity, as Grade II Telugu Pandit. The report said to have been submitted by the Mandal Educational Officer, at the instance of 2nd respondent, if at all any thing, would only reflect the lopsided approach on his part. He obediently recorded whatever was stated by the 1st respondent, without realizing the implications thereof. His ignorance is evident from the fact that even when the 1st respondent stated that the petitioner did not obtain the permission of the Correspondent, or the District Educational Officer, before approaching the court, the same was reflected in his report. No effort was made to secure the presence of the petitioner. The 1st respondent appears to be under the impression that he can do any thing he wants, to the petitioner. The tone and tenor of the counter affidavit, as well as the reply got issued by him to a notice, vouch for themselves. For instance, in his reply, the 1st respondent stated as under: “Hence, advice your client not to follow the evil advises of his companions forcing my client to take disciplinary action against your client also. If your client is so eager to rush to the court of law for trivial issues he is at liberty to do so but he cannot dictate terms to the Management. Hence advice your client to come and report to duty immediately after taking necessary modifying orders from the competent authority as your client is not inclined to take the post of Head Master In- charge. Otherwise your client also faces the same consequences as his companion Mr.K.S.R.Anjaneyulu is facing. Hence this reply.” In other words, he was not prepared to permit the petitioner to work as Grade II Telugu Pandit, unless modified orders are obtained from the competent authority. Neither the view taken by the 1st respondent, nor his attitude, can be countenanced, and they deserve to be deprecated. Further, there is nothing on record to disclose that the 1st respondent has ever issued any memo to the petitioner about his alleged absence from the duties. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner, to function as Grade II Telugu Pandit. They are also directed to release the salary to the petitioner, for the months from November 2007 onwards, within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ 25th March 2008 PAN