IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1076 of 2011 DATED: 26.12.2011 Between: 1.The Regional Joint Director of School Education Kadapa, Kadapa District and another. ….Appellants And 1.Musharath Jehan, D/o Sk.Mahaboob Saheb, Grade-1 Hindi Pandit, Panyam Cements High School, Kurnool and 2 others. .. Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.A.No.1076 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.12.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.No.9375 of 2005 instituted by respondents 1 and 2/Writ Petitioners. The 3rd respondent herein is a private Educational Institution, admitted to grant-in-aid. Two posts of Hindi Pandits, Grade-I and II are among those, admitted to grant-in-aid. They have fallen vacant in the year 2003. According to the roster, both the posts were earmarked for O.C. women. The 3rd respondent approached the appellants seeking permission to fill the posts, in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and that permission was accorded by the 2nd appellant-District Educational Officer, Kurnool vide proceedings dated 21.10.2003. Accordingly, a notification was issued and applications were called for and that respondents 1 and 2/ Writ Petitioners submitted applications. The Selection Committee, constituted in accordance with the relevant provisions, selected both the Writ Petitioners. Consequently, the proposals submitted by the Management for according approval were rejected by the 1st appellant by proceedings dated 31.03.2005. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the writ petition contending that once the advertisement was issued after obtaining permission from the 1st appellant, there is no justification for refusing approval. In the counter-affidavit, the appellants contended that though the Government nominee was appointed in May, 2004, the selections were taken up only in the month of October, 2004. Reference is made to ban, said to have been imposed by the Government. By an order dated 29.12.2010, a learned Single Judge of this Court, while setting aside the impugned order, allowed the writ petition directing the 1st appellant to pass orders afresh according the same treatment to the 2nd respondent herein, as he did it to the 1st respondent herein. Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of the appellants and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. It is not in dispute that the 2nd appellant accorded approval for filling up of the vacant posts of Hindi Pandits Grade-I and II. The notification was issued in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and the selection process was also completed and respondents’ 1 and 2/writ petitioners were selected. The proposals submitted by the 3rd respondent herein were rejected by the 1st appellant vide proceedings dated 31.03.2005. Admittedly, the appointment of the 1st respondent herein was approved by the 1st appellant during the pendency of the writ petition vide proceedings dated 24.08.2007. Now the controversy is only about the appointment of the 2nd respondent herein. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that mere delay of few months in conducting the selection does not result in any illegality and the ban order issued would operate for future appointments only. Since the 1st appellant has accorded approval for the appointment of the 1st respondent herein on 24.08.2007, the learned Single Judge has rightly directed the 1st appellant to pass fresh orders according the same treatment to the 2nd respondent on par with the 1st respondent herein. On the analysis of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the order under appeal, as there is no discernable error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge warranting interference. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed upholding the impugned order of the learned Single Judge. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 26.12.2011 Gsn.