IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30114 of 2011 Between: APSSSR High School and others … Petitioners And The Government of A.P. and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.30114 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, Commissioner & Director of School Education, in not forwarding the report sent by the 4th respondent, District Educational Officer, in Rc.No.136/B6/2007, dated 12.05.2008 and in Rc.No.136/B6/2007, dated 25.07.2008 to the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and consequentially to direct (i) the 2nd respondent to send a report to the 1st petitioner school in respect of absorption of the petitioners 2 to 11 in the shifted surplus aided vacancies after the aided vacancy posts are shifted to the 1st petitioner school and (ii) direct the 1st respondent to pass orders of absorption of the petitioners 2 to 11 in the aided vacant shifted posts after the same are shifted to the 1st petitioner school from the date on which they have joined in the respective posts. The case of the petitioners is that the 1st petitioner is a minority educational institution and it is an aided Telugu Medium School. There were certain aided posts, which were granted by the 1st respondent. In addition to the aided posts, the 1st petitioner school is also having certain un-aided sanctioned posts, which were sanctioned by the 3rd respondent, Regional joint Director of School Education, who is the competent authority as per the rules issued in G.O. Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. As per the rules, unaided vacancies also have to be filled up by the 1st petitioner school, duly following the method of selection as prescribed under the G.O. Ms.No.23, dated 10.03.1999 besides the said G.O. dated 01.01.1994. As per the rules prescribed under the said G.Os., the petitioners were got selected by the Staff Selection Committee for teaching and non-teaching cadre of posts in the un-aided vacancies and accordingly, appointment orders were issued by the 1st petitioner under the proceedings dated 27.06.2001. In the said proceedings as many as 11 teaching and 3 non-teaching staff were appointed. Further, the 1st respondent permitted the D.E.Os. for shifting the aided vacancies from one school to another along with the person, under rationalization scheme on the basis of the teacher pupil ratio. As the 1st respondent has given the permission to the D.E.Os., the petitioners were selected by the duly constituted selection committee as teaching and non teaching staff and a representation is also made to the 1st respondent for shifting of vacant aided posts from the schools where there are no children to the 1st petitioner school, so as to get absorption orders in the aided vacant posts. Thereafter, the 1st respondent vide Memo dated 27.11.2007 has directed the 2nd respondent to examine the request and send specific remarks in the matter, while marking a copy of the same to the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 13.12.2007 has requested the 3rd and 4th respondents to submit their reports in the matter, immediately. Accordingly, the 4th respondent has submitted his remarks to the 2nd respondent on 12.05.2008 based on the reports submitted by the Deputy Educational Officer, Tadepaligudem. Further, vide proceedings dated 25.07.2008, the 4th respondent has informed the names of the persons who were working in the un-aided posts and who were selected by the duly constituted selection committee. Even though the 4th respondent has submitted availability of surplus aided vacant posts, in the district, along with the particulars of un-aided staff, who are working at present to be benefited for absorption and to issue instructions for shifting surplus aided vacant posts to the 1st petitioner school, to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent so far has not submitted any report to the 1st respondent, for enabling the 1st respondent to take a decision of shifting of the vacant aided posts to the 1st petitioner school. In view of the delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in sending the report to the 1st respondent, the petitioners are put to irreparable loss and prejudice. Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though the 4th respondent submitted his reports vide his letter dated 12.05.2008 and 25.07.2008 to the 2nd respondent, the 2nd respondent is not forwarding the same to the 1st respondent and other authorities for taking necessary action in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have made a representation but no orders have been passed thereon. Under those circumstances and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, I deem it appropriate to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners. Accordingly, the 1st and 2nd respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders, if not already passed, in accordance with law, based on the reports dated 12.05.2008 and 25.07.2008 submitted by the District Educational Officer (FAC) to the Director of School Education, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 14.11.2011 LSK