THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO : 10725 of 2010 Dated: 17.6.2010 Between: 1. M. Vikramadity and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Government of A.P., Rep., by its Secretary, School Education Department and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO :10725 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in reducing the pay of the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary and consequently, to direct the respondents to fix regular pay scale attached to the post of School Assistant from the date of the petitioners’ absorption. It is the case of the petitioners that initially, they were appointed as B.Ed Assistants with the respondent-schools in unaided sanctioned posts after due selection by the committee and they were paid regular scale of pay attached to the post and subsequently, when sanctioned aided posts fell vacant, the 4th respondent accorded permission to absorb them into Grant-in-aid posts. But, while absorbing the petitioners into it, the respondents imposed a condition that the petitioners should draw Rs.1500/- per month for a period of two years. It is their further case that the condition of apprentice and condition of pay scale as per G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 16.8.2001 can be applied to the candidates selected for the first time, but not like petitioners, who were already selected by duly constituted selection committee in unaided posts and have been working in unaided posts. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that in similar circumstances, in W.P.No.17583 of 2003 and W.P.No:23093 of 2004, this Court held that the absorption of the petitioners therein in aided posts shall be treated as not on apprenticeship and they shall be paid scale of pay attached to the posts in which they were absorbed. Therefore, the case of the petitioners can be considered Heard the learned Counsel on record and perused the material available on record. When this matter has come up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this matter is squarely covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23093 of 2004, dated 11.7.2005 whereas the learned Government Pleader opposed by saying that every selected candidate for the aided post of teachers shall be initially appointed as an apprentice and during the period of apprenticeship, he will be paid consolidated amount as may be fixed by the Government. The issue raised in this writ petition has already been considered in WP No.23093 of 2004 on 11.7.2005. That judgment has also become final. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the contention of the learned Government Pleader cannot be sustained. Under these circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment in W.P.No.23093 of 2004, dated 11.7.2005. No order as to costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 17th June, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION NO :10725 of 2010 17/06/2010