THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18373 of 1999 Dated: 08.02.2010 Between: K. Manesh. .. Petitioner And The Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Vidya Bhavan, Hyderabad, And others. .. Respondents ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the orders in Rc.No.808/E1- 1/97, dated 27.03.1999, passed by the respondent Board, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Lecturer and grant all the consequential benefits from the date of his appointment. Under the impugned order dated 27.03.1999, the Correspondent of M.S.Junior College, Gooty, Anantapur, the 3rd respondent herein, was informed that the proposals sent by him for approval of the appointment of certain teaching staff, including the petitioner, was not considered for the reason that their appointments were not made according to the procedure laid down by the Government/BIE from time to time. According to the petitioner, since 01.04.1997, he has been working as a Junior Lecturer in Civics in the College of the 3rd respondent, one of the Minority Educational Institutions, having subjected to selection process and recommended by the duly constituted Selection Committee. Thereafter, the Management of the college of the 3rd respondent sought for approval of the appointment of the petitioner, but however, by order dated 27.03.1999 of the respondent Board, the 3rd respondent was informed that the approval of the appointment of the petitioner and others was not considered. The grievance of the petitioner is that when there is no procedure laid down by respondents 1 and 2 for selection of staff in Minority Educational Institutions, passing of the impugned order by the respondent Board, stating that the appointments were not made according to the procedure laid down by the Govt./BIE from time to time, is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent, it is stated that the Management appointed the petitioner on 31.03.1997, without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent. It is also stated that the Management did not follow the guidelines given in G.O.Ms.No.526, dated 21.12.1988 and Lr.No.11364/E1-1/83, dated 11.11.1983, while appointing the petitioner as part-time lecturer in their College. Heard the learned counsel on either side. The stand taken by the 1st respondent in his counter affidavit does not inspire confidence of this Court, in view of the material placed on record, which indicates that the Management, having obtained permission from the competent authority by proceedings dated 09.11.1990, constituted the Selection Committee and, basing on the recommendations of that Committee, appointed the petitioner as a Junior Lecturer in Civics in the College of the 3rd respondent in an aided vacancy on 31.03.1997. It seems, one K.Prabhakar Reddy, who was earlier appointed to the post in question and later terminated, has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14931 of 1992, questioning his termination, and obtained stay, but however, he has subsequently withdrawn the writ petition and gave no objection to the Management to appoint another candidate to the said post, pursuant to which the appointment of the petitioner was considered. Apart from this, in the impugned order, except stating that the appointments were not made according to the procedure laid down by the Govt./BIE from time to time, no detailed reasons, much less the reasons stated in the counter affidavit, are furnished. In these circumstances, it can be said that the impugned order is passed without considering the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27.03.1999 is set aside, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh, taking into consideration the observations made in this order, and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 08.02.2010 v v