THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition No. 23934 OF 2005 DT. 7.2.2011 Between: G Suvarna … Petitioner And Govt of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat , Hyderabad and ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri B Vijaysen Reddy Counsel for respondents: G P for School Education The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition No. 23934 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on regular basis as Telugu Pandit Grade II in the 4th respondent School as illegal and arbitrary and further to direct the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner dated 27.5.2004 for appointment as Grade II Telugu Pandit in the 4th respondent school without reference to the ban imposed by the Government on recruitment of teachers vide memo dated 20.10.2004. It appears the petitioner was initially appointed into the services of the 4th respondent school in the year 1993 as Telugu Pandit and at the time of his appointment, there were no recruitment rules and the same were introduced vide G.O.Ms No. 526 dated 7.1.1998, which were superceded and replaced by order in G.O.Ms No. 1 dated 1.1.1994. The selection process was introduced for the purpose of recruitment to schools. Since on the date when the petitioner was recruited, no rules were available, it should be deemed that she was appointed on regular basis, however, the petitioner and others filed W.P.No. 6722 of 1996 for regularization of their services and the said writ petition was disposed of by orders dated 12.6.1997 directing the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners therein for appointment on regular basis from the date of initial appointment. Since the case of the petitioner and Smt Prameela Kulkarni were rejected, they have filed W.P. No. 23330 of 1998 for regularization of their service. At the time of their appointment, they were paid a sum of Rs.600/- as consolidated pay, subsequently, in the year 1990 the same was enhanced to Rs.1210/-. There were three vacancies and the posts in which the petitioners were appointed were added to grant in aid long back and therefore sought for pay on par with the regular employees. However, unable to bear the harassment of the ex-management of the 4th respondent school, the petitioner has resigned from the post. In the meanwhile, W P No. 23330 of 1998 was disposed of by orders dated 24.3.2004 following the orders passed in W.P. No. 22722 of 1998 dated 24.3.2003. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner had resigned, this Court directed the petitioner to make an application and the respondents were directed to consider for regularisation of her services as Telugu Pandit in the 4th respondent institution. Now the grievance of the petitioner, is that though she made an application dated 27.5.2004 and there exist regular vacancies, her case was not considered on par with smt Prameela Kulkarni. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the only difference between the petitioner and Smt Parimala Kulkarni was that she continued in service, whereas, unbearable with the harassment of the management, the petitioner resigned from the school, as such this Court vide orders in W P No. 23330 of 1998 dated 24.3.2004 permitted the petitioner to make an application and directed the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner, however, the same is not considered till date. The case of the respondents is that there is a ban imposed for recruitment of teachers, therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. The above statement made by the respondents, appears to be not correct, inasmuch as the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 24.3.2004 and in terms thereof the petitioner has submitted her application on 27.5.2004 itself, that is, much prior to imposition of the ban on 20.10.2004, therefore, the case of the petitioner needs to be considered on par with Smt Parimala Kulkarni/first petitioner in W P No. 23330 of 1998. Hence, imposition of ban, has nothing to do with consideration of the case of the petitioner, more so, when the said post was already admitted to grant in aid by that time. It is also to be noticed that the Commissioner and Director of School Education through proceedings in reference Rc.No.1081/D2-4/2004 dated 11.10.2004 directed the Regional Joint Director of School Education to submit his report. Pursuant to the said letter, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad submitted his report vide letter No. 1482/A1/2003 dated 29.11.2004 stating that the services of Smt Parimala Kulkarni as Hindi Pandit Grade II were already regularisaed vide proceedings Rc No.1482/A1/2003 dated 22.3.2003 w.e.f. 1.8.1991 and monitory benefits from 1.6.1997 were paid (copy enclosed). In view of the above facts and circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for fresh appointment in terms of the directions of this Court in W P No. 23330 of 1998 dated 24.3.2004 and the observations made by this Court supra and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 7.2.2011 TVK THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU Writ Petition No. 23934 OF 2005 DT. 7.2.2011