IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24225 of 2005 Between: C. Madhavi, W/o. P. Ramanadham, Hindu, PVR Aided Upper Primary School, Dwarakapadu, Martur Mandalam, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of A.P. Rep by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 3 District Educational Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4 Manager & Correspondent, PVR Aided Upper Primary School, Dwarakapadu, Martur Mandalam, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc.No. 1929/C3/2003, dt. 03-1-2004 directing the respondents to pay the salary in accordance with GO Ms.No. 100 Edn. (PS-1) Dept., dt. 16-8-2000 is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents herein to release the aided salary with effect from 1-5-2000 with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.R.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24225 of 2005 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in the PVR Aided Upper Primary School, 4th respondent herein, on 24.08.1998 against an unaided vacancy. She was subjected to selection by a Committee, comprising of the representatives of the Management, the District Educational Officer and two subject experts. The appointment of the petitioner was ratified by the District Educational Officer, Ongole, 3rd respondent herein, vide proceedings, dated 22.08.1998. An aided vacancy arose in the School, on account of the retirement of a Teacher. The 4th respondent treated the petitioner against the said vacancy and submitted proposals to the 3rd respondent for approval. Initially, the 3rd respondent returned the proposal, on the ground that the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.10.1994, must be followed afresh for appointment against the aided vacancy. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17584 of 2000 feeling aggrieved by the said action of the 3rd respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent accorded approval for the absorption of the petitioner, vide his proceedings, dated 03.01.2004. Thereby, the writ petition became infructuous. However, it was directed that the petitioner shall be paid salary in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said condition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. The initial appointment of the petitioner on 24.08.1998 was against an unaided vacancy. All the same, the procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.10.1994, was followed and the petitioner was subjected to selection by a Committee constituted in terms of the said G.O. The procedure prescribed under the G.O. applies to aided as well as unaided vacancies. The petitioner came to be absorbed against aided vacancy, vide proceedings, dated 03.01.2004, with effect from 01.05.2000. The 3rd respondent imposed the condition that the salary of the petitioner shall be paid in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001. According to this G.O., a teacher would be entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month for the first year of appointment and Rs.1,800/- per month from the second year. There would have been justification for the 3rd respondent to enforce the pay structure under G.O.Ms.No.100 against the petitioner for the first two years of her appointment. Having ratified her appointment with effect from 1998, the 3rd respondent sought to apply the pay structure to the petitioner, consequent upon her being absorbed against aided vacancy. The permissibility of such a course was examined by this Court in W.P.No.17583 of 2003. In the order, dated 19.08.2004, passed therein, it was held that regularization or absorption of an existing teacher against an aided vacancy in a private institution shall not be treated as apprenticeship and thereby, the pay structure stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001, shall not apply to such cases. Following the same, the writ petition is allowed. It is directed that the pay structure of the petitioner shall be determined, without reference to G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.08.2001. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24225 of 2005 Date : 18.08.2008 JSU