IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32546 of 2011 Between: Smt.Hajra Begum … Petitioner And The Government of A.P., Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Education (Ser.III) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.32546 of 2011 ORDER: Questioning inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in considering the case of the petitioner to accord approval for absorption into the Aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher pursuant to the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent vide his letter dated 13.02.2004 and 28.06.2004, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 5th respondent’s School in the year 1987 vide Proceedings dated 08.11.1987 and the said appointment was approved by the 4th respondent, District Educational Officer, vide his proceedings dated 24.09.1993 with effect from joining in the School i.e. 11.11.1987. She was absorbed from un-aided post of SGT to SGT aided post with effect from 27.06.2003 and since then she is working in the said post. Thereafter, the 5th respondent submitted proposals vide letter dated 07.04.2004 to the 4th respondent for absorption of the petitioner in the vacant post with effect from 27.06.2003. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent, Regional Joint Director of School Education, submitted the said proposal to the 2nd respondent, Commissioner and Director of School Education, vide his letter dated 20.07.2004. Based on the said proposal, the 2nd respondent also vide his letter dated 07.08.2004, after approving the proposal of the 3rd respondent, addressed a letter to the 1st respondent, Government, requesting to issue necessary orders as desired by the 3rd respondent and to accord approval for absorption of the petitioner in the vacant post of SGT in the 5th respondent’s School with effect from 27.06.2003 in the aided post. Thereafter, the petitioner made number of representations to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider her case but she did not receive any communication from the respondents and the matter is pending with the Government. But subsequently she was orally informed that pursuant to the orders passed by the Government vide memo dated 20.10.2004 to the effect that no new posts of Grant-in-Aid would be created and the existing vacancies will also not be filled up, except that has been specifically authorized since there is a general ban on recruitment, her case cannot be considered. Assailing inaction on the part of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner, she filed the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that against the order of the Government in imposing ban vide memo dated 20.10.2004 some of the affected teachers filed a writ petition and the same was allowed and aggrieved by which, the Government preferred appeal before the Apex Court and the Apex Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the Government holding that the ban orders were only prospective in nature and the said memo cannot be made applicable to the orders passed before issuance of the ban orders. As the case of the petitioner for absorption was sent for approval to the Government by the 5th respondent to the 2nd respondent in hierarchy prior to issuance of memo dated 20.10.2004, the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, reported in the case of GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS v. SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS[1]. In pursuance to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in one supra, the petitioner is entitled to absorption against the aided post in the 5th respondent’s school. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader would submit that on the face of the record, it appears that the matter is pending consideration with the Government. Therefore, the Government may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record. The facts narrated hereinabove are not in dispute. The Apex Court held in the case one supra at para 18 reads as under: “Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. There is no dispute that the memo dated 20-10-2004, imposing a ban on recruitment to grant- in-aid posts was issued after the schools in question had been given permission by the State authorities to fill up the vacant posts in the schools being managed and run by the writ petitioners, who are the respondents in these special leave petitions. There is also no dispute that the said memo was not given retrospective effect so as to negate the approval already given for filling up the grant-in-aid posts. The State Government and its authorities could not therefore, contend that the rationalization process which had been introduced, would also apply in respect of the private aided schools, where the process of recruitment had already been commenced pursuant to the approval granted earlier.” From the above, it is clear that the memo dated 20.10.2004, issued by the Government, is only prospective in nature and it appears that the case of the petitioner was processed before issuance of the said memo. Therefore, the said memo has no application insofar as the case of the petitioner is concerned. As it is evident from the record that the case of the petitioner was processed prior to issuance of the said memo and the matter is pending consideration with the Government and the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is also that the case of the petitioner is pending with the Government and the learned Government Pleader also submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, without going into the merits of the case, the 1st respondent, Government, is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, on the proposal stated to have been sent by the 2nd respondent, Commissioner and Director of School Education, vide his letter dated 07.08.2004, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 13.12.2011 Note: Furnish C.C. in a week. B/o. LSK [1] (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 556 (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 613