IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT APPEAL No. 1868 OF 2002 Between: P.S.S. Karuna Kumari ..... APPELLANT AND The District Educational Officer, Krishna at Machilipatnam and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (per THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMAD) Writ Petition No. 7892 of 1993, dismissal of which by order dated 30.09.2002 is assailed in the present Writ Appeal, was filed by the appellant herein seeking a writ of mandamus to declare that the appellant is entitled for appointment as B.Ed., Assistant with effect from 28.12.1990, from which date the fifth respondent herein was promoted and for such other ancillary reliefs. The appellant herein filed the above writ petition questioning the proceedings dated 28.12.1990 issued by the first respondent herein appointing the fifth respondent as B.Ed., Assistant ignoring the seniority of the appellant. The appellant had been working in an unaided post as Secondary Grade Teacher from 10.2.1976 and it was admitted to grant-in-aid with effect from 1.7.1977. Through GO Ms. No. 178 dated 23.7.1990 the Government sanctioned posts of B.Ed., Assistant to the second respondent school and the fifth respondent was appointed in the said post, which was also approved and subsequently the fifth respondent was promoted as Headmistress with effect from 1.11.1992. It is case of the appellant/petitioner that she is working as Secondary Grade Teacher in grant-in-aid post from 1.7.1977 whereas the fifth respondent was appointed on 1.9.1981 and thus, she is senior to the fifth respondent. It is also her case that out of the two posts sanctioned in the said G.O., since one post had already been occupied by a Mathematics Assistant, in terms of the proceedings dated 15.10.1981 issued by the third respondent, the other post should go to humanities branch, i.e. the petitioner alone should be considered de hors seniority of the petitioner in service. Whereas, it is the case of the fifth respondent that even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, since there is another incumbent senior to the petitioner, opportunity goes to the other incumbent and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi. It is the case of the official respondents that though the appellant/petitioner is senior to the fifth respondent, the fifth respondent was appointed as B.Ed. Assistant in view of the need of the school management for the subject. The learned Single Judge by the order impugned has dismissed the writ petition observing that the petitioner did not approach the court in right time inasmuch as by the time of disposal of the writ petition itself, the fifth respondent had already become Headmistress after appointment as B.Ed., Assistant and, therefore, after such a long lapse of time, it is not proper to disturb the status of the petitioner/ appellant and the fifth respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the present the Writ Appeal is filed by the writ petitioner. The self-same contentions are sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant as were raised before the learned Single Judge. It is further contended by him that in view of the admission made by the official respondents that the appellant is senior to the fifth respondent, the appointment of the fifth respondent as B.Ed., Assistant is unsustainable. Per contra, it is the contentions of the learned Government Pleader for School Education and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent that there are laches on the part on the part of the appellant, inasmuch as the impugned order was passed on 28.12.1990 whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 1993. It is also contended that the petitioner has no locus standi for the reason that even if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it is the incumbent who is senior to the appellant/petitioner who would get the promotion and not the petitioner. It is also sought to be contended that by the time of disposal of the writ petition itself the fifth respondent was promoted as Headmistress and, therefore, it is not in the interest of school management to unsettle the settled position of the petitioner and the fifth respondent. A further contention is sought to be raised that against the impugned order, appeal lies to the second respondent and the petitioner without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal, has filed the writ petition, which ought to have been dismissed on the grounds of maintainability. As can be seen from the order impugned and the counter affidavit filed by the official respondents, there are laches on the part of the appellant/petitioner in agitating her rights. The learned Single Judge, having considered the entire gamut of the issue, has rightly observed that the petitioner did not agitate her rights in right time and, therefore, it would be difficult to correct or cure the defect that has been caused to the petitioner, inasmuch as for the laches on the part of the petitioner, the fifth respondent was promoted as Headmistress and had been functioning as such. Therefore, in our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to disturb the status of both the parties. It is stated that the appellant has already retired from service. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we concur with the observation made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the petitioner/appellant is always at liberty to approach the second respondent to assert about the injustice caused to her by submitting an application, in which event, the second respondent is directed to forward the same to the first respondent, who shall consider the case of the appellant in accordance with law, for the post of B.Ed., Assistant. We do not see legal infirmity in the order impugned. Consequently, the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed ________________ Justice K.G.Shankar April 27, 2011 MAS