HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA W.P.No.20058 OF 2001 DT.03.12.2010 Between: Smt.Naseem Fathima …………..Petitioner Vs. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad and three others. …………Respondents. O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare that the petitioner is entitled to approval of her appointment as School Assistant with effect from the date of her appointment i.e. 25.11.1995 on par with similarly situated person Smt.Umma Hani, School Assistant, whose appointment was approved from the date of her first appointment, vide Proceedings dated 22.03.2000 issued by the 1st respondent-Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad with all consequential benefits including salary and other attendant benefits by holding the action of the respondents in approving the petitioner’s appointment only from 15.01.1998 vide Proceedings in R.C. No.1461/A-III/96, dated 15.01.1998 issued by the 1st respondent- Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, as arbitrary and illegal. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that in pursuance of the paper Notification dated 22.08.1995 issued by the 4th respondent-Correspondent, Girls High School, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad on 15.09.1995, the petitioner applied for the post of School Assistant. Later, she was selected and appointed to the post of School Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.2,525/- - Rs.5,390/- in terms of G.O.Ms. No. 1, dated 01.01.1994, vide proceedings dated 20.11.1995 issued by the 4th respondent. In pursuance of the proceedings, she joined duty on 25.11.1995 as School Assistant and since then she has been working as such. Soon after her appointment, the 4th respondent-Correspondent of the school submitted proposals for approval of her appointment, but her appointment was not approved and no reasons are assigned for non- approval of her appointment. However, the 1st respondent-Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad had issued proceedings dated 15.01.1998 approving her appointment as School Assistant with immediate effect instead of the date of appointment i.e. 25.11.1995 without justifiable reason. She further stated that the 1st respondent did not approve the appointment of Umme Hani, who was selected and appointed along with her, as such, Umme Hani filed a writ petition in W.P. No.18369 of 1999, and based on the orders passed by this Court, her appointment was approved with effect from 24.11.1995 as is clear from the proceedings dated 22.03.2000 issued by the 1st respondent. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not approved her appointment from the date of her appointment i.e. 25.11.1995, and instead, approved her appointment only from 15.01.1998 even though she is similarly situated and appointed along with Smt.Umme Hani, which action is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal and in violation of the constitutional provisions. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed counter on 22.10.2002 stating that the petitioner was selected by the school authorities after conducting oral and written test on 12.10.1995 and orders of appointment were issued without prior approval of the competent authority, and the proposals submitted by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad were examined, and thereafter, the selection of the petitioner was approved with immediate effect, vide proceedings dated 15.01.1998 issued by the 1st respondent, but not from the date of her appointment. It is further stated that selection of Mrs.Umma Hani was approved with effect from 24.11.1995 as per the orders of this Court in W.P.No.18369 of 1999 vide proceedings in R.C.No.4578 /A3/92/98, dated 22.03.2000. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education and perused the material placed on record. Since the orders of the appointment of the petitioner were found to be not in violation of Sub-Rule (9) of Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dated 01.01.1994, it is to be observed that the selection and appointment of the petitioner by the School authorities are not found fault with, but the action of the 1st respondent in approving her appointment with effect from 15.01.1998 instead of 25.11.1995 is not justifiable. For the lapses on the part of the 1st respondent, the petitioner should not be penalized, as such, the orders passed by the 1st respondent in not approving the appointment of the petitioner from the date of her appointment is not in consonance with law or settled legal principles. Moreover, the approval made by the 1st respondent is stated to be a formality and whenever such approval is made, it should be from the date of the appointment. Further, the learned counsel for both the parties have agreed that it is a fact that Mrs.Umme Hani had filed W.P.No.18369 of 1999, and in pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, her appointment was approved from the date of her appointment. Therefore, this Court is of the view that inasmuch the subject matter of the present writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No. 18369 of 1999, the petitioner herein should be governed by the same rules as made applicable to the case of the petitioner therein. In the above view of the matter, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: “The 1st respondent-Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, is hereby directed to approve the appointment of the petitioner from the date of her appointment i.e. 25.11.1995 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and release her arrears of grant- in-aid post from the date of her appointment, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J 3rd December, 2010 tjs/bcj