THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9375 of 2005 ORDER: The 3rd respondent is a Private Educational Institution, admitted to grant-in-aid. Two posts of Hindi Pandits, Grade-I and II are among those, admitted to grant-in-aid. They have fallen vacant in the year 2003. According to the roster, both the posts were earmarked for O.C. woman. The 3rd respondent approached respondents 1 and 2 seeking permission to fill the posts, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. Permission was accorded by the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer, Kurnool, vide proceedings, dated 21.10.2003. Accordingly, a notification was issued and applications were called for. Petitioners herein submitted applications. The Selection Committee, constituted in accordance with the relevant provisions, selected both the petitioners. The proposals submitted by the Management for according approval were rejected by the 1st respondent by proceedings, dated 31.03.2005. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioners contend that once the advertisement was issued after obtaining permission from the 1st respondent, there is no justification for refusing approval. It is further urged that the reasons mentioned by the 1st respondent in the impugned order are untenable. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that though the Government nominee was appointed in May, 2004, the selections were taken up only in the month of October, 2004. Reference is made to ban, said to have been imposed by the Government. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for School Education and learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appointment of the 1st petitioner was approved by the 1st respondent, during the pendency of the writ petition, through proceedings, dated 24.08.2007. Now the controversy is only about the appointment of the 2nd petitioner. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent accorded approval for filling up of the vacant posts of Hindi Pandits Grade-I and II. The notification was issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. Selection process was also completed and the petitioners were selected. The proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent were rejected by the 1st respondent, through proceedings, dated 31.03.2005. It is rather unfortunate that the Officer of the rank of Regional Joint Director, has chosen to pass such a callous and indifferent order. One of the reasons for rejection is that he entertained a doubt, as to the correctness of the permission, accorded by the 2nd respondent. In fact, he sought explanation for this from the 2nd respondent. In case he entertained a doubt, he ought to have taken final decision, after seeking clarification. The doubt cannot constitute the basis for rejection of the proposals. Another reason pleaded by respondents 1 and 2 is that there was delay on the part of the management in undertaking selections. Even if it is true that the departmental nominee was identified in May, 2004, the Committee does not come into existence automatically. The convenience of various officials has to be ascertained and the Committee has to be constituted. At any rate, mere delay of few months, in conducting the selection, does not result in any illegality. Finally, respondents 1 and 2 state that a ban has come into force. The ban, at the most, would operate for future appointments. In the instant case, the steps were initiated much in advance. At any rate, the 1st respondent has accorded approval for the appointment of the 1st petitioner, in the year 2007. By the time, the so-called ban was very much in operation. The 2nd petitioner stands on the same footing. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders according the same treatment to the 2nd petitioner, as he did it to the 1st petitioner. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29.12.2010. GJ