IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 19201 of 2008 Between: 1 The District Educational Officer, Karimnagar. 2 The Commissioner & Director of School Education, A.P. Hyderabad. 3 The Head Master ZPSS Girls, Manthani, Karimnagar. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND M. Shiva Leela , School Asst. Teacher O/o. ZPSS (Girls) Manthani, Karimnagar District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to and connected with the orders dt. 3-9-2007 in OA No. 3936/205 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash or set aside the same by holdings as erroneous and contrary to law and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.ELISHA The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No :19201 OF 2008 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order, dated 3.9.2007 in O.A.No.3936 of 2005 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent was originally appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1988. While she was working as Secondary Grade Teacher, at Manthani, the first petitioner issued proceedings dated 21.10.2002 promoting her to the post of School Assistant and was posted at Z.P.S.S. Bhoopathipur, Raikal Mandal, Karimnagar District. Respondent made an application dated 30.10.2002 requesting to post her at Manthani on the health grounds of her spouse and the same was forwarded by the first petitioner to the second petitioner. The second petitioner vide proceedings dated 6.1.2003 issued orders directing the first petitioner to consider the request of the respondent and then the first petitioner issued orders dated 28.1.2003 posting the respondent at Z.P.P.S. Girls, Manthani. Accordingly, the respondent joined and started working. Thereafter, the first petitioner issued orders dated 27.6.2003 cancelling the earlier orders dated 28.1.2003 and the same were challenged by the respondent before the Tribunal in O.A.No.4305 of 2003. Pending the said O.A., the Tribunal passed the interim order on 3.7.2003, which reads as under: “Pending further consideration of the O.A., the respondents are directed to continue the applicant, if no body is posted in place of the applicant.” 3. Since the petitioners had not complied with the interim orders, C.A. No. 797 of 2003 was filed on 16.9.2003. But however, the Tribunal has disposed of the main O.A. itself on 6.2.2004 setting aside the cancellation orders dated 27.6.2003. Pursuant to the orders of the Tribunal, dated 6.2.2004, the first petitioner issued proceedings, dated 14.5.2004 permitting the respondent to join at ZPPS (Girls) Manthani. Thereafter, the respondent filed a representation dated 17.8.2004 to treat the period from 30.6.2003 to 14.5.2004 as on duty, but the petitioners issued orders dated 12.1.2005 refusing to treat the above period as on duty as it is not feasible for consideration and requested the Head Master, ZPHS (Girls) Manthani to sanction eligible leave to the incumbent during the gap period and submit compliance report. The said order was challenged in the present O.A. by the respondent contending that when the Tribunal in the earlier O.A. vide its interim order dated 3.7.2003 directed the petitioners to continue the respondent at Manthani, the same was not implemented by the petitioners and had the petitioners implemented the interim order, the question of waiting would not arise and inaction of the petitioners in treating the period as compulsory wait as illegal and arbitrary. The Tribunal has allowed the O.A. holding that the petitioners are bound to treat the period from 30.6.2003 to 14.5.2004 as on duty and pay salary to the respondent. 4. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners contended that the respondent was relived on 30.6.2003 from Manthani and the respondent without joining at Bhoopathipur , sought for modification of the transfer orders on the personal grounds. The Tribunal had passed the interim order subsequent to the relieving of the respondent from Manthani. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled for treating the period from 30.6.2003 to 14.5.2004 as on duty and the order of the Tribunal for treating the above period as on duty and to pay salary to the respondent, is illegal and arbitrary and prayed to set-aside the order of the Tribunal. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was interim order directing the petitioners to continue the respondent, if no body is posted in place of the respondent. Since that order was not implemented and was subsisting , the Tribunal has rightly allowed the O.A. and the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this court. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also submissions made by the learned counsel, it is evident that the interim orders, dated 3.7.2003 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.4305 of 2003 were not complied with by the petitioners. The reposting orders dated 14.5.2004 reveals that the respondent was posted at Manthani in the existing vacancy. The interim orders were subsisting through out the pendency of the O.A. and those orders were not altered or modified by the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the interim orders were not implemented by the petitioners even though there is existing vacancy to continue the respondent at Manthani. Therefore, we do not find any legal infirmity or error in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 24-10-2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}