HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:9700 OF 2008 DATE:22.7.2010. Between: M.Prabhavathi …Petit And: The Mandal Educational Officer, Kanigiri & another …Respond This Court made the following: HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:9700 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mand to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the petitio representation dated 15.12.2006 and not passing orders by permittin petitioner to join in her post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the respondent School and not paying salary, as arbitrary and unreason and consequently, to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to j her post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the 2nd respondent-scho paying the salary and all other benefits from 15.12.2006. The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Seco Grade Teacher in the 2nd respondent school and her appointment ratified by the District Educational Officer, Prakasam, as per his procee vide R.C.No:129-C/85, dated 23.3.1985. Subsequently, in the year the Government issued orders directing all the managements of a unaided schools to remove the teachers who have obtained Karn certificates. Questioning the same, the petitioner and several other aff teachers approached this Court and filed writ petitions wherein this passed orders directing the authorities to continue all the teachers in respective posts. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner had been continu the same post. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No Education (Services III) Department, dated 30.12.2004 according permi to the teachers who are continuing in service by giving them 3 years ti acquire the training qualification in one of DIETs of A.P Government. It is her further grievance that while so, due to certain family prob she applied for leave from 1.12.2002 and the said application of leave granted on loss of pay and she was on leave with effect from 1.12.2002 subsequently, the same was extended from time to time till 15.12.2006 after expiry of the leave, in spite of her joining report and the rep representations till 10.12.2007, the 1st respondent has not passed orders permitting her to join in her post. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned G school Education. The 1st respondent has filed the counter-affidavit contending th petitioner was appointed as S.G.T in the 2nd respondent school and the appointment was ratified by the D.E.O Prakasam vide proceedings 23.3.1985 and that the petitioner worked upto 20.11.1995 and subsequ the petitioner did not report to duty without any intimation to the conce and in that regard, to fill up the vacant post, the D.E.O vide procee dated 13.3.1996 accorded permission for filing up of the vacancies an the Committee selected one Ch. Chinnaiah on 24.3.1996 and management had submitted the proposals to the DEO for approval an same was approved vide proceedings Rc.No.133337/C1/95, 15.4.1996. On the rival contentions, there is no dispute as to the appointm the petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher. But, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitione appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the year 1985 and she work 20.11.1995 as such, whereas it is case of the petitioner that she applie leave from 1.12.2002 and the said application of leave was granted on of pay and subsequently, the same was extended from time to tim 15.12.2006. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has failed to adduce material to the effect that she applied for leave from 1.12.2002 till 15.12 and the said leave was granted to her. It is the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner work 20.11.1995 as Secondary Grade Teacher and subsequently, she di report to duty. In the absence of any material on record adduced by the peti that she applied for leave on loss of pay from 1.12.2002 till 15.12.2006 in the light of the contentions raised in the counter by the 1st responden the petitioner worked only upto 20.11.1995, there is no othergo exce hold that the absence of the petitioner was without any intimation t concerned. Even, the petitioner has failed to explain the delay in approachin Court within the reasonable time except saying that she was se representations from time to time till 10.12.2007. Therefore, the approa the petitioner before this Court, does not appear to be a bonafide one. such, this writ petition is devoid of merits and thereby, the same is lia be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ Justice T.Meenaku Date:22.07.2010 NN HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI WRIT PETITION NO:9700 OF 2000 DATE:22.7.2010.