IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25736 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt. Anjali Deodhar, W/o. Arun Deodhar, R/o. H.No.2-4-1085, Sai Laxmi Niketan, Flat No. 203, Nimboliadda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. 2 Smt. Sandhya Deshmukh, W/o. Prakash Mahagaonkar, R/o. H.No.16-2-836-A/26(814), LIC Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 3 Smt. Chhaya Deshpande, W/o. Shripad Kakade, R/o. Railway Quarter No.A-88, Near Kachiguda Railway Station, Kachiguda, Hyderabad - 500 027. 4 Smt. Meena Rajput, W/o. Randheer Singh, R/o. H.No.3-4-469/1, Opp : Reddy Women's College, Narayanguda YMCA, Hyderabad. 5 Smt. Ranjana Girgaonkar, W/o. Srikant Birare, H.No. 15-1-301, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad - 500 012 6 Smt. Meenakshi K.Chavan, W/o. Prakash P. Gavane, R/o. H.No.2-4-945-S3, II Floor, Ramakrishna Apartment, Limbone Adda, Kachiguda - 500 027. 7 Smt. Surekha Kulkarni, w/o. R.B. Dongarkar, R/o. H.No.3-16-108/9/238/2, Kamakshipuram Street No. 9, Ramantapur, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Prl. Secretary to Government, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. 4 The Vivek Vardhani Educational Society, Rep by its Secretary- Cum- Correspondent, H.No.5-1-524, Vaman Naik Marg, Jambagh, Hyderabad - 500 194. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order, specifically one in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to absorb the petitioners herein into grant-in-aid vacancies as per the proposals sent by the fourth respondent herein on 17-3-2003 by declaring the proceedings in DO Letter No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4 dated 20-10-2004 as being inapplicable and inoperative insofar as the petitioners herein are concerned with all consequential and other attendant benefits as regards seniority, arrears of pay. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.N.VIVEKANANDA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.25736 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondents 1 to 3. According to the petitioners, they are all working as teachers in different schools run by the 4th respondent Society, having been appointed as such by way of regular selection process. It is their grievance that though they are all eligible for absorption into grant-in-aid posts of Secondary Grade Teachers and though proposals in that regard have been submitted by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, as early as on 17.03.2003, pursuant to the permission granted by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002, and they have been called for interview by the 3rd respondent, their cases have not been considered for absorption and the proposals are kept pending in view of the ban imposed by the Government, vide its memo bearing D.O.Lr.No.12080/COSE/A.2/ 2004-4 dated 20.10.2004, which is in fact not at all applicable to their cases. In support of the case of the petitioners, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A.No.1578 of 2005 and batch, wherein it was held as hereunder: “If the decision contained in Memo dated 20.10.2004 is read in the light of the above interpretation of the relevant rules, we do not have any hesitation to approve the view taken by the learned Single Judges that the ban imposed on the recruitment against existing vacancies is not applicable to the cases in which permission had already been granted by the District Education Officer or the Regional Joint Director.” Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that following the aforesaid Judgment, the writ petitions, being W.P.Nos.3820 and 7769 of 2006, filed by the similarly situated persons, have also been allowed by this Court on 17.09.2008, directing the respondents to consider approving the proposals sent by the District Educational Officer prior to 20.10.2004 and pass appropriate orders as per law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. He further submits that in the case on hand also, proposals for absorption of the petitioners into grant-in-aid posts of Secondary Grade Teachers have been submitted prior to 20.10.2004, pursuant to which the petitioners have also attended the hearing conducted by the 3rd respondent in connection with their absorption, and therefore the relief, which was extended to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, may also be extended to the petitioners herein. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that the Judgment of this Court in W.A.No.1578 of 2005 and batch referred to above is under challenge before the Supreme Court, and therefore the benefit of the said Judgment cannot be extended to the petitioners. However, ultimately, both the counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 3rd respondent- District Educational Officer, Hyderabad, is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on the proposals submitted by the 4th respondent Society in connection with absorption of petitioners into grant-in-aid posts of Secondary Grade Teachers, taking into consideration the orders if any passed by the Supreme Court as well as the rules applicable in this regard, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th December, 2008 IBL