THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.368 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Sri Sarada Vidya Mandir High School, Wanaparthy, respondent No.2 herein, in the year 1990. At that time, the institution was not admitted to grant-in-aid. Subsequently, five posts of the School were admitted to grant-in-aid in the year 2003. The petitioner states that though he happens to be one of the five senior Teachers to be absorbed, the administration of the school has tampered with the records to depict as though respondent No.3, who is none other than the husband of the then Correspondent, is senior. The petitioner claims to have made representations on 18.12.2003 to respondent No.1 and other authorities of the Education Department and his grievance is that no action has been taken thereon. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that five Teachers of respondent No.2 institution were absorbed against the aided vacancies on the basis of seniority. It is further mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner against the un-aided vacancy was not approved by the competent authority and that he is not entitled for absorption. The list of the Teachers who were absorbed against aided vacancies is also furnished. The learned counsel for the petitioner is no more and this Court directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner. However, there is no response. This Court perused the entire record and heard the learned Government Pleader for Education. The petitioner has not challenged any specific order. Obviously, he was not aware of the proceedings, dated 18.09.1992, through which five teachers of respondent No.2 institution were admitted to grant-in-aid. In case he felt aggrieved by the said proceedings, he ought to have challenged them before the competent authority or before this Court. As long as the absorption of five Teachers is not challenged, the representation made by the petitioner does not help him in any way. Further, the affected parties are not impleaded as respondents. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies vis-à-vis the proceedings, dated 18.09.1992, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:21.10.2010. kdl