HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1014 of 2011 Dated: 23-11-2011 Between: St.Theresa’s High School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Ongole, Prakasam District. …Appellant AND The Director/Commissioner of School Education, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad and others. Respondents. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO W.A.No.1014 of 2011 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy) This intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the orders of learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11457 of 2010, dated 28.12.2010 directing the District Educational Officer, Prakasam District at Ongole to determine the inter se seniority between the writ petitioner and the contesting respondent in the writ petition in the school concerned within a maximum period of 30 days and such determination shall be made on the basis of the records maintained with regard to the length of continuous service put in by the respective teachers in the school and based upon his findings, the senior most teacher in the school shall be kept as in-charge Head Master in the school, as the policy of the State is to keep the senior most teacher as in-charge Head Master. Fourth respondent herein filed the above writ petition challenging the proceedings issued by the Correspondent of St.Theresa’s School (appellant herein) dated 1.5.2010 appointing one K.Balaswamy Reddy, Assistant working at appellant’s school as in-charge of the Head Master post with effect from 1.5.2010 to 30.4.2011 for one year consequent to the retirement of Ch.Jogaiah, in-charge Head Master. Pending the writ petition, by order dated 20.5.2010, learned single Judge of this Court stayed the impugned proceedings dated 1.5.2010 in WPMP.No.14550 of 2010. The appellant herein filed a vacate stay petition for vacating the said interim order contending that K.Balaswamy Reddy-5th respondent herein is not a junior to the writ petitioner as his post was admitted into grant-in-aid with effect from 1.6.1985 and that the writ petitioner’s post was also admitted into grant-in-aid on the same day. When the writ petitioner was kept as in-charge of the Head Master from 13.6.2003, he committed several irregularities about his Service Register apart from creating politics among the staff members which led to forming of groups and deterioration of strength of the school. Claiming that he should be kept as in-charge Head Master, writ petitioner filed W.P.No.13449 of 2004, but whereas, the management appointed one Jogaiah as in-charge Head Master on 1.9.2004, who is senior to the writ petitioner and after his retirement on 30.4.2010, 5th respondent herein was appointed as Head Master and on the same day, he took charge. It is alleged that the writ petitioner committed several irregularities, mislead the Educational Officer and the management and opened a duplicate Service Register. Further a letter is received by the management of appellant-School from Local Fund Audit Officer, Prakasam District, Ongole on 26.1.2006 to the effect that the writ petitioner is cheating the correspondent, management and Education Department. In response to the representation made by the writ petitioner, the R.J.D. Guntur issued proceedings in R.C.No.1534/A1/2010, dated 31.5.2010 to submit the remarks by the management and the management has submitted report as to the remarks of the writ petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. The learned single Judge of this Court without referring to the eligibility of the writ petitioner as well as 5th respondent herein, who was appointed as in-charge Head Master in preference to the writ petitioner, issued the above direction without leaving any discretion to the District Educational Officer to pass orders on the representation made by the writ petitioner himself. Since the matter is pending before the Regional Joint Director on the representation made by the writ petitioner, prima facie we are of the view that unless the remedy is exhausted, a writ petition cannot be entertained. Without looking into all the said aspects, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order leaving no discretion to the District Educational Officer, which led to passing of an order by the District Educational Officer on 23.7.2011 in Rc.No.223/B1/2010 appointing the writ petitioner as senior most teacher. Questioning the same, the writ appellant herein filed W.P.No.19905 of 2011 in which stay of the said order is sought for. Since the said order was passed pursuant to the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court, it could not be stayed by this Court. Under those circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition be decided on merits along with W.P.No.19905 of 2011 filed by the appellant herein. The Writ Appeal is accordingly allowed . No order as to costs. _________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) _______________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) NOVEMBER 23, 2011 TSR