IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.5047 of 1997 DATED 26-3-2007 BETWEEN M.S.Kondal Rao .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.5047 OF 1997 ORDER: The relief sought for in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to approve the petitioner’s appointment as Hindi Pandit Grade-II and to admit him to grant-in-aid post with effect from 1.4.1994, in which post he was working from 15.7.1988 in the 4th respondent school and to pay him the arrears of salary. On the ground that the petitioner was working as a Hindi Pandit Grade-II ever since 15.7.1988, the 4th respondent submitted proposals to the Government to grant approval for appointment of the petitioner to the grant-in-aid post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.411 dated 10.11.1994 admitting certain posts in different schools in the state to grant-in-aid. The posts, which were admitted to grant-in-aid includes the post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II in the 4th respondent School. Subsequently the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 1.1.1995, admitted the unaided post in which the petitioner was working to grant-in-aid with effect from 1.4.1994 and the petitioner was absorbed in the grant-in-aid post. However, vide proceedings dated 9.1.1997, the 3rd respondent informed that there was no provision in the rules for condonation of breaks in service in respect of three teachers working in unaided posts in the 4th respondent school and that necessary action be taken to fill up the posts in terms of the existing rules in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 1.1.1994. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the official respondents, it is specifically stated that the 4th respondent school had submitted proposals to approve the appointments of unaided teachers who were appointed prior to G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 28.12.1988 and since the petitioner was shown as having been appointed on 15.7.1988, which is prior to G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 28.12.1988, the competent authority had granted approval for admitting the post to grant-in aid and that the records reveal that the petitioner had joined the 4th respondent school not on 15.7.1998 but on 2.11.1990, which is subsequent to G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20.12.1988. The petitioner’s right to be absorbed in the grant-in-aid post was denied on the ground that his appointment was not prior to G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 28.12.1988. Sri B.V.Rammohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner was in fact appointed on 15.7.1988 prior to G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20.12.1988 and that the 3rd respondent had erred in holding that he was appointed on 2.11.1990. Learned counsel would seek to place reliance on several such proceedings issued by the 4th respondent in support of his contention that the petitioner had joined duty on 15.7.1988. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.3782 of 1997 dated 9.9.2004 wherein this Court had directed the respondents therein to treat the petitioner therein - Smt.V.D.Dhana Lakshmi, (one of those persons referred to in the proceedings dated 9.1.1997 of the 3rd respondent), as regularly appointed against the grant-in-aid post with effect from the date on which grant-in-aid was sanctioned to the 3rd respondent institution on 10.11.1994. Learned counsel would submit that since the petitioner is similarly situated to Smt.V.D.DhanaLakshami, this Court should grant a similar relief in his favour. The factual dispute is whether the petitioner was appointed on 15.7.1988 or on 2.11.1990 for if he was appointed on 15.7.1988, he would be entitled for being absorbed in the grant-in-aid post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the records would show that the petitioner joined duty only on 2.11.1990. As to what are the records, which were relied upon in this regard has not been spelt out in the counter affidavit. Sri B.V.Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that pursuant to the interim orders of this Court suspending the impugned proceeding dated 9.1.1997, the petitioner is continuing to work in the grant-in-aid post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II even as on today. Since this Court would, ordinarily, not adjudicate disputed questions of fact, ends of justice would be met if the petitioner is permitted to submit a representation to the 3rd respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order furnishing all the necessary details in support of his contention that he has been working in the 4th respondent school ever since 15.7.1988, and the 3rd respondent is directed to examine the information furnished in the light of the relevant records and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law on the petitioner’s entitlement to be continued in the grant-in-aid post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II within three months from the date of receipt of the petitioner’s representation and till such time the petitioner is permitted to be continued in the grant-in-aid post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II as he continues to work in the said post in view of the interim directions passed by this Court in WPMP No.6043of 1997 dated 2.4.1997. It is made clear that this order is passed, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, more so, in view of the fact that pursuant to the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has continued to work in the grant-in-aid post of Hindi Pandit Grade-II for the past more than a decade. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner does not submit a representation within the aforesaid stipulated time, the order now passed will not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioner or the 4th respondent school in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt: 26.3.2007 Note: Furnish CC in one week. msv.