THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.8737 OF2003 O R D E R Heard the counsel for the writ petitioners and the Government Pleader for School Education. 2. Aggrieved by the proceedings in R.C.No.26/A-4/1994 dated 25.2.2003 issued by the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram in rejecting the proposals sent by the petitioners – Aided Elementary Schools, for approval of the appointments made for SGBT Teachers, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Petitioners who are five in number, are all the Aided Elementary Schools and they are represented by their respective Correspondents. As per the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, their case is that, there are certain vacancies in SGBT Teacher posts in the schools and as they are being run with two or three teachers, for filling up the vacant teacher posts as per G.O.Ms.No.1 PS – 2 dated 1.1.1994, the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer by his proceedings in Rc.No.26/A4/94 dated 27.5.2000 permitted the petitioners to fill up the vacant teacher posts and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners notified the posts in two local newspapers and in Employment Exchange as enumerated under Rule 12 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules 1993 (for short ‘Educational Rules’) and invited the applications. It is stated that all the appointments are subject to the approval of the competent authority. Further, in the selection process, there shall be a nominee of the District Educational Officer. As the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer has not deputed any departmental nominee, the petitioners filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.12409/2002 and this court by order dated 11.7.2002 directed the respondents to depute a departmental nominee, to finalize the selections of SGBT teachers. Pursuant to the directions of this court, the 1st respondent – Commissioner of School Education, vide his proceedings in R.C.No.648/B1- 1/2002 dated 9.10.2002, directed the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, to take necessary action. In spite of the above direction in the writ petition and the direction of the 1st respondent, as the 2nd respondent – D.E.O. failed to depute any departmental nominee, the petitioners constituted Selection Committee as per G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.1994 and invited the Mandal Educational Officer to attend the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee conducted written test and oral interview as per the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.75 Education (PS) Department dated 23.9.2002 and appointed teachers on 10.11.2002. The case of the petitioners is that Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.1994 is categorical to the effect that the absence of the departmental nominee, will not invalidate the selections made by the Selection Committee. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that without assigning any reasons and in violation of the principles of natural justice, the 2nd respondent – D.E.O. has issued the impugned proceedings and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 4. The 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer filed counter and stated that as the petitioners failed to follow the procedure contemplated under Rules 12 and 13 of the G.O.Ms.No.1, PS-2 dated 1.1.1994, the proposal for approval of appointment of teachers in the petitioners’ – schools, was rejected. In the counter it is also stated inter alia that as the appointments were made in violation of the communal roster under Rule 12(6) of the Educational Rules and further as the G.O.Ms.No.75 Edn. Dept. dated 23.9.2002 was kept in abeyance in view of the orders of the Division Bench of this court, the impugned orders are passed rejecting the proposals sent by the petitioners for approval of the appointment of the teachers. With these averments, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, further submitted that Rule 12(6) of the Educational Rules, has been struck down by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6575-6576 of 2004 dated 14.3.2077 and hence the ground taken in the counter that the appointments were made in violation of the communal roster under Rule 12(6) of the Educational Rules, cannot be sustained. He submitted that before rejecting the proposals by the impugned order, no notice calling for the explanation, was issued and no reasons were also assigned and as this would entail civil consequence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, the leaned counsel appearing for the Government submitted that as the appointments were made in violation of the G.O.Ms.No.1 PS-2 dated 1.1.1994, the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer passed the impugned order rejecting the proposals for approval of appointments and hence no notice need be given and further, reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit, she sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside? 8. The case of the petitioners is that as there are vacancies of SGBT Teacher posts in their schools, and with the permission of the 2nd respondent – Educational Officer vide proceedings dated 27.5.2000 and as per G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.1994, notified the posts in two local newspapers and also to the District Employment Exchange and by following the procedure prescribed under Rule 12 of the Educational Rules and as per G.O.Ms.No.75 Education (PS) Department dated 23.9.2002 made the selections by constituting Selection Committee. Their grievance is that in spite of the directions of this court in W.P.No.12409/2002 dated 11.7.2002 and also in view of the proceedings of the 1st respondent – Commissioner of Education Department, the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, failed to depute the departmental nominee and, therefore, by following the procedure, as narrated at paragraph no.3, the Selection Committee selected teachers and further their case is that Rule 12 of the G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.1994 is categorical to the effect that absence of the departmental nominee will not invalidate the selections made by the Selection Committee. 9. Further, the main grievance of the petitioner is that no reasons were assigned in the impugned order and no notice was given. At this juncture it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order as under: “With reference to the subject cited, the Managers of Aided Elementary Schools, P. Levidi, Gumma, Karivalasa, Kukkidi and Chemuduguda are hereby informed that the proposals for approval of appointments made by you are rejected, since the Managers have not followed the rules as per G.O.Ms.No.1 P.S. 2 Dept., dated 1.1.1994. This has got the approval of the Dist. Educational Officer, Vizianagaram.” 10. From the perusal of the above order, it could be seen that no reasons, in detail, were given by the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, for rejecting the proposals for approval of the appointments made by the petitioners and the only ground is that G.O.Ms.No.1 PS. 2 Dept dated 1.1.1994 has been violated. What are the violations, are not specifically stated and in the counter filed by the 2nd respondent he has come up mainly with the ground that the petitioners failed to follow the communal roster under Rule 12(6) of the Educational Rules. It is well settled principle of law, that the impugned order, cannot be justified by giving reasons in the counter and the impugned order shall invariably contain reasons. In the present case, as noted above, no reasons were given. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the Apex Court has struck down Rule 12(6) of the Educational Rules in Civil Appeals Nos.6575-6576 of 2004 dated 14.3.2007 and he has also produced a copy of the order. Further, the case of the petitioners is that Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.1994 is categorical to the effect that the absence of the departmental nominee will not invalidate the selections made by the Selection Committee. As noted above, the other grievance of the petitioners is that no notice was issued before passing the impugned order. The counter filed by the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, is conspicuously silent on this aspect. 11. Therefore, as no reasons were given in the impugned order and further, as principles of natural justice were violated, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the issued framed is answered in the affirmative. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram District for considering the proposals for approval of appointments made by the petitioners, in accordance with law and in the light of the above contentions of the petitioners and the judgment of the Apex Court, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------------------- 16—06—2008