THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6599 of 1999 Dated: 03.03.2010 Between Smt. N.Jhansi Rani … Petitioner And The Staff Selection Committee of ABM Junior College , Nellore and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 6599 of 1999 O R D E R : In response to the notification issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications for filling up the post of B.Ed (Maths) Assistant in ABM Junior College Kavali, the petitioner herein appeared for the written test and was qualified. Thereafter, she appeared for the oral interview held on 08.06.1998. However, no further steps were taken by the 1st respondent. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 1st respondent in finalizing the selections, the petitioner filed W.P.No.867 of 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court at the stage of admission by order dated 22.01.1999 with directions as under: “Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction that the first respondent shall forward the proposals of selections made on 08.06.1998, if not already forwarded, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and the third respondent shall take further action in accordance with law within a period of three weeks thereafter from the date of receipt of proposals from the first respondent. No costs.” Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent by letter dated 02.12.1999 informed the petitioner that the selections were not finalized as the entire selection process was vitiated being contrary to the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994. Challenging the said action of the respondents the present writ petition is filed. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is stated that the notification dated 30.03.1998 was issued pursuant to the permission accorded by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur vide his proceedings dated 17.03.1998. As per Rule 13 of the Rules made in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education Department dated 01.01.1994, the Staff Selection Committee shall consist of the President of the Educational Agency or his nominee, the Correspondent/Secretary/Manager of the Institution, Headmaster/Principal of the institution, two subject experts to be selected by the education agency from the approved panel and in respect of the Aided Schools, an Officer of the Education Department not below the rank of Deputy Educational Officer nominated by the District Educational Officer. However, the Deputy Educational Officer, who was appointed by the District Educational Officer as the administrator of the staff selection committee himself constituted the selection committee without participation of the 1st respondent- institution. By letter dated 11.06.1998, the said fact was brought to the notice of the District Educational Officer by the 1st respondent stating that the whole selection process was vitiated since the same was contrary to the statutory rules. Even the answer sheets of the candidates appeared for the selections were kept with the Deputy Educational Officer himself. In the circumstances, the selections pursuant to the notification dated 30.03.1998 were not finalized. Separate counter affidavit has been filed by the District Educational Officer, Nellore on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 stating that the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 12.05.1998 appointed the Deputy Educational Officer, Kavali as nominee of the District Educational Officer for conducting selection process as provided under the statutory rules. All the members of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose were present for both written and interviews held on 03.06.1998 and 8.06.1998 respectively. The 2nd respondent by letter dated 15.04.1999 informed the 1st respondent-college the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.867 of 1999 and called upon the 1st respondent to forward the proposals of selection made on 08.06.1998 within a period of three weeks. Long thereafter, on 12.08.1999, the correspondent of the 1st respondent- College requested the 3rd respondent Regional Joint Director to accord necessary permission for filling up additional aided posts including B.Ed (Maths) stating that certain irregularities were committed by the Deputy Educational Officer, Kavali during the earlier selection process. However, the Correspondent did not submit the proposals for approval of the selections made by the selection committee on 03.06.1998 and 08.06.1998. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the Rules’) were made under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 99 read with Sections 20,21,79, 80 and 83 of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. As per Rule 12 of the said Rules, the educational agency shall appoint staff as per the staffing pattern prescribed by Government and all the staff teaching as well as non-teaching shall be recruited through Staff Selection Committee to be constituted by the educational agency in accordance with the said rules. The procedure for constitution of the staff selection committee has been prescribed under Rule 12(5). Rule 12(8) of the Rules further made it clear that the appointments shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority and for the said purpose, the educational agency shall inform the competent authority within one month of the selection and thereafter, the competent authority shall grant approval unless the selection has been in violation of the Rules. If the approval is not granted within two months from the date of receipt of the proposals in respect of un-aided posts, the approval shall be deemed to have been granted. Rule 12(9) further made it clear that the educational agency shall make appointments only on the approval and as per the sub rule (8) of Rule 12. In the light of the above statutory Rules, it is clear that no appointment of teaching staff can be made without obtaining the approval of the competent authority. The educational agency is under an obligation to communicate selection to the competent authority within one month of the selection. In the instant case, admittedly, the 1st respondent did not inform the competent authority the selections in the interviews held on 08.06.1998. In the circumstances, there cannot be any appointment on the basis of the said selections. Even assuming that the default is on the part of the 1st respondent-institution to inform the selections to the competent authority in compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, it does not confer any legally enforceable right on the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. May be it is open to the official respondents to take appropriate action against the 1st respondent for its failure to comply with the statutory provisions and the petitioner may also proceed against the 1st respondent-institution for damages or for any other appropriate relief, but no mandamus as such can be issued at this stage to finalize the selections pursuant to the notification dated 30.03.1998. Accordingly, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy as available under law before the proper forum for redressal of her grievance against the 1st respondent, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 03.03.2010 KLP