THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PEITITON No.1277 of 2002 DATED:13.12.2010 BETWEEN P.SATYANARAYANA REDDY & ANOTHER. …PETITIONERS AND THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, KAKINADA & OTHERS …RESPONDENTS. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PEITITON No.1277 OF 2002 ORDER: - This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus to declare the orders of the 3rd respondent in Rc.No:21/2001- 2002 dated 18.1.2002 as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the A.P. Education Subordinate Service Rules and consequently, to set aside the same and direct respondents-1 to 3 to fill the vacant B.Ed. Assistant Posts with the social studies candidates i.e., the petitioners as per the seniority and subject requirement. The case of the writ petitioners is that the 3rd respondent school is running with the aid of the Government and the rules framed by the Government are applicable to the 3rd respondent-schools as per Rule 12 of A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishments, Recognitions, Administration and Control of the Schools under Private Managements) Rules 1993 (for short ‘Rules’). The 1st petitioner was appointed as Grade II Telugu Pandit on 10.7.1992 and he has put in 10 years of service. He possessed B.A., M.A., (Litt) and B.Ed qualification and he is eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistant in Social studies. The 2nd petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 5.11.1996 and he has put in more than 5 years of service. He also possessed B.Com., B.Ed and the said qualification is sufficient for promotion to the post of B.Ed Assistant (Social Studies) as per the Rules. One post of B.Ed Assistant fell vacant due to promotion of Sri N.Subbarao on 1.4.2000. The petitioners made a representation to the respondents to send the proposals in Rc.No:21/2000-2001, dated June, 2000. As per the said proposals, 8 B.Ed Assistant Posts were sanctioned to the 3rd respondent school viz., 4 maths and Science, 1 Natural Science and 3 Social Studies. One Social studies post which fell vacant in the year 1994 could not be filled up as there was no qualified candidate in the subject and the same was filled up with Mathematics Candidate. In the said proposals, the 3rd respondent has shown the work load for 3 Social Studies and included the names of the 1st petitioner at S.No:1 and the 2nd petitioner at S.No:2 and also the 4th respondent at S.No:3 while stating that there is no work in Natural Science, for which the 4th respondent is qualified. It is the further case of the petitioners that surprisingly, the 1st respondent in his letter in Rc.No:4025/A1/00/2, dated 13.7.2000 directing the 2nd respondent to fill the vacant post with Mathematics B.Ed Assistant as per G.O.Ms.No:49, Education Department, dated 26.2.1998. As per the said G.O., the Teacher-pupil ration should be 1 : 55 and the subject ratio between Mathematics, Science and Social Studies is 1 : 1 : 1. The strength of the High School is 546 in the year 2000 and total B.Ed posts are only 8. The Teacher-Pupil ratio was 1 : 68 and even according to the subject wise ratio, there should be 3 : 3 : 3. As there are no sufficient B.Ed posts, the 3rd respondent sent proposals as per the subject requirement. To the utter surprise of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent issued orders in Rc.No:21/2001-2002, dated 18.1.2002 promoting the 4th respondent as B.Ed Assistant in Natural Science in which there is admittedly no work load. It is the further case of the petitioners that the 4th respondent was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 4.8.1997 and she possessed B.Sc., (BZC) and B.Ed in Biology. As per Rule 7 of the A.P Education Subordinate Service Rules, one should put in 3 years of service in a particular cadre for promotion to the higher post. Either on the date of vacancies or on the date of proposals or on the date of the instructions, the 4th respondent was not eligible for promotion and there is no work load in Natural Science for which she is qualified. But, the 3rd respondent promoted the 4th respondent contrary to its proposal, dated: -6-2000 and also contrary to the instructions issued by the 1st respondent in Rc.No:4025/A1/2002, dated 13.7.2000. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the B.Ed Assistants are possession Mathematics and Physical Science. One B.Ed post is possessing Maths and English and one B.Ed post is possessing Natural Science and they are teaching the same subjects. The 1st petitioner is teaching Telugu and Social Studies up to 7th Class and he possessed the requisite qualification and experience in the subject and there was work load in Social Studies as there were only two B.Eds in Social Studies as against the need of posts of 3. The 1st respondent is the competent authority in respect of High schools and the 3rd respondent sent the impugned promotion orders dated 18.1.2002 for approval of respondents-1 and 2 and if the said proposals are approved, the petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Hence, they have filed the present writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, the District Educational Officer, West Godavari District, Eluru who is the 2nd respondent herein filed a counter. While denying the averments made by the petitioner, it is inter alia contended that the respondent has passed orders in Lr.No:RC.60-B3/2000, dated 12.1.2002 to the effect that the existing vacancy of B.Ed Assistant may be filled with Science only as per the Rules laid down in G.O.Ms.No:49,Education, dated 26.2.1998 and the petitioners are not having science methodology in B.Ed., Degree and hence they are not eligible to get promotion and therefore, the question of seniority does not arise. While filling up the vacancies in any school including the aided schools, staff pattern must be observed as per the instructions issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998. The seniority will be observed when the individuals is qualified to hold the post of a particular category and the petitioners are qualified to hold the post of B.Ed Assistant in Social studies and as a matter of fact there is no work load for social studies and therefore, the seniority is not required in the present case. The work load will be assessed in the subject of social studies as and when the vacancies are to be filled in. There are three sanctioned aided B.Ed., Assistant posts in 3rd respondent school and as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998, 8-posts have to be divided as under: Mathematics-3 Science -3 Social studies –2 Therefore, there is no necessity to fill up the vacancy with social studies since two B.Ed assistants have already been working in the subject of social studies. The 1st respondent vide proceedings Rc.No:4025/A1/00- 1, dated 13.7.2000 has issued instructions to fill up the vacant post of B.Ed Assistant in Z.N.V.R. High School, Penugonda with Mathematics and the said orders have been issued by the 1st respondent as per the work loan particulars furnished by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, the work load and qualifications of the B.Ed Assistants working at present have been verified again and this respondent has submitted the detailed proposals to the 1st respondent vide Lr.No:Rc.60-B3/2000, dated 21.3.2001 and dated 12.10.2001 and 6.12.2002 duly submitting that the present vacancy of the B.Ed Assistant has to be filled up with the subject of Science. Accordingly, the 1st respondent vide proceedings No:4025/A1/2000, dated 7.12.2001 has issued instructions to fill up the B.Ed Assistant post as per G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998. It is further contended in the counter that as per the G.O., the vacancy has tobe filled with the subject of Science and there is sufficient work load to fill up the B.Ed posts in the subject of Science and as the 3rd respondent has promoted the 4th respondent as per orders of the 1st respondent in Rc.No:4025/A1/2000, dated 7.12.2001, this respondent has issued instructions to the 3rd respondent to fill up the post in the subject of Science vide proceedings No:60-B3/2000, dated 12.1.2002. Therefore, the question of overlooking the seniority of the petitioners does not arise since the petitioners are qualified to hold the post of social studies in the subject of Social studies only. It is also contended that out of 4- B.Ed Assistants, 3 – B.Ed assistants have to allotted the subject of Mathematics and another B.Ed Assistant has to be allotted the subject of Science (Physical Science) keeping in view of their main subjects in Degree and Methodologies in B.Ed. Another B.Ed assistant is handling Science (Natural Science and 2 –B.Ed Assistants having been working in the subject of Social Studies. The details are given hereunder: Total Sanctioned B.Ed Assistant posts & subject wise as per G.O.Ms.No:49 P e r s o n s working against the posts Balance of work Load. Mathematics –3 3 Nil Science-3 2 01 Social Studies-2 2 Nil. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The case of the petitioners is that there are vacancies in the subject of social studies and they are entitled for being considered as B.Ed Assistants in the subject of Social Studies. In this regard, it is stated in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent that as per the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, Education, dated 26.2.1998, 8 – posts attached to the 3rd respondent school have to be divided as under: Mathematics-3 Science –3 Social Studies-2 It is further stated in the counter that there is no necessity to fill up the vacancy in the subject of Social Studies on the ground that 2 – B.Ed Assistants have already been working with Social Studies and on the information as to the work load particulars furnished by the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued proceedings in Rc.No:4025/A1/00-1, dated 13.7.2000 to fill up the vacant post of B.Ed Assistant in ZNVR High School, Penugonda with Mathematics. It is further stated in the counter that subsequently, on verification of the work load and the qualifications of the B.Ed Assistants working at present, once again, the 2nd respondent submitted the detailed proposals to the 1st respondent in Rc.No:60-B3/2000, dated 21.3.2001, 12.10.2001 and 6.12.2002 duly submitting that the present vacancy of the B.Ed Assistant has to be filled with Science and accordingly, the 1st respondent has issued instructions in Rc.No:4025/A1/2000, dated 7.12.2001 to fill up the B.Ed Assistant Post as per the G.O.Ms.No:49, Education, dated 26.2.1998. It is further stated that according to G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998, 3 – B.Ed Assistant posts have also been allotted to the subject of Science and at this juncture, the 4th respondent has completed the prescribed period of 3 years in the cadre of Secondary Grade Assistant and she is qualified to hold the post of B.Ed Assistant (Science) and therefore, the 4th respondent School promoted the 4th respondent as per the directions issued by the 1st respondent in Rc.No:4025-A1/2000, dated 7.12.2001 as well as the 2nd respondent in Lr.No:60-B3/2000, dated 12.1.2002 and therefore, the question of overlooking the seniority of the petitioners does not arise. It is pertinent to note that no reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners contradicting the contentions raised in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the fact that remains undisputed is that certain guidelines have been issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, Education, dated 26.2.1998 as to the formation of the staff pattern as well as allocation of subjects among the 8 – posts, which is specified as under: Mathematics –3. Science-3. Social Studies-2. At this juncture, it is to be noted that admittedly, 2 – B.Ed Assistants have been working in the subject of Social Studies. There is also no dispute that staff pattern has to be in consonance with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998 while filling up the vacancies in any school including the aided schools. Keeping in view the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998 and also the fact that the 4th respondent has completed the prescribed period of 3- years in the cadre of Secondary Grade Assistant and she is qualified to hold the post of B.Ed Assistant (Science) and also keeping in view the work load in the subject of Science, the 3rd respondent school has promoted the 4th respondent as per the directions given by the 1st respondent in Rc.No:4025-A1/2000, dated 7.12.2001 and also the order of the 2nd respondent in Rc.No:60-B3/2000, dated 12.1.2002. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that there are vacancies in the subject of social studies and they are entitled for being considered as B.Ed Assistants in the subject of Social Studies, cannot be countenanced in the light of the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998. In this back ground of the matter coupled with the guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No:49, dated 26.2.1998, I am of the view that no latches can be attributed against the respondents in promoting the 4th respondent and therefore, the Official respondents are justified in passing the order impugned herein. Therefore, this writ petition is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Date:13.12.2010 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PEITITON No.1277 of 2002 DATED:13.12.2010