IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16585 of 2003 Between: K. Megha Mala, W/o. K.V. Subba Reddy, Keshav Memorial Junior College of Boys, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad .....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 issue an order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the services of the petitioner into grant-in-aid as a Junior Lecturer in English in the College with effect from the dated of her initial appointment i.e., 1-8-1990 is illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Article 14 of the constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to admit the service of the petitioner into grant-in-aid as a Junior Lecturer in English in the College from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 1-8-1990 with all consequential benefits such seniority and arrears of the salary. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. E.ELLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : Govt. Pleader for Higher Education The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.16585 OF 2003 ORDER : The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Lecturer in English in Keshav Memorial Junior College for Boys, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad on 1.8.1990 against an aided vacancy. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not regularizing her services, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.5251 of 1996. Pending the said writ petition, vide G.O.Rt.No.195, Education Department, dated 24.02.1998, the petitioner was granted minimum pay scale of Rs.3,110/-. The said writ petition was disposed of by a common order dated 14.12.2001 along with other writ petitions filed by similarly situated persons with a direction to the Commissioner of Intermediate Education to regularize the services of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, G.O.Rt.No.104, Education Department, dated 5.2.2003 was issued regularizing the services of the petitioner by admitting her in the aided vacant post of Junior Lecturer in English in Keshava Memorial Junior College for Boys from the date of that order. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not admitting her into grant-in-aid from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 1.8.1990 with all consequential benefits, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. While directing Rule Nisi, this Court by order dated 11.9.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.20580 of 2003 directed the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 9.6.2003 to admit her services into grant-in-aid w.e.f. the date of her initial appointment in terms of the order dated 11.11.1992 in W.P.No.6080 of 1989 filed by a similarly situated person. Thereafter, the 1st respondent by Memo dated 4.2.2004 rejected the request of the petitioner stating that she was not entitled for admission into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect as per the Rules. In view of the said order, the prayer in this writ petition has been amended seeking a declaration that the order of the 1st respondent dated 4.2.2004 is arbitrary, illegal and for a consequential direction to the respondents to admit the services of the petitioner into grant-in-aid as a Junior Lecturer in English from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 1.8.1990 with all consequential benefits such as seniority and arrears of salary. Despite notice, no counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, under instructions from the respondents while submitting that there is no provision to consider the petitioner’s case with retrospective effect from the date of her initial appointment, contended that it is the policy of the Government to regularize the services only prospectively. The learned counsel for the petitioner refuted the said contention and placed before this Court various orders passed by the respondents admitting to grant-in-aid with retrospective effect. The learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the orders of this Court in W.A.No.1225 of 1998, dated 3.8.1999 and W.P.No.14852 of 2003, dated 24.09.2003, in support of his contention that the respondents ought to have admitted the post held by the petitioner into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect. Admittedly the petitioner’s services as Junior Lecturer in Keshava Memorial Junior College for Boys were already regularized vide G.O.Rt.No.104, dated 5.2.2003 and she was also granted scale of pay w.e.f. 1.3.1996. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was admitted to aid w.e.f. 5.2.2003 i.e., the date of the order under which her services were regularized. The only grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the respondents ought to have admitted her to aid from the date of her initial appointment instead of 5.2.2003. As noticed above, the petitioner’s request for admission into grant-in-aid from the date of her initial appointment i.e., 1.8.1990 was rejected by the Government by order dated 4.2.2004 without assigning any reasons. Though the fact that her initial appointment on 1.8.1990 was against an aided vacancy and that the petitioner was granted the scale of pay w.e.f. 1.3.1996 is not disputed, the only contention raised on behalf of the respondents is that as per the policy of the Government the grant-in-aid cannot be admitted with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the objection raised by the respondents is without any basis, placed before this court various orders passed by the Government from time to time admitting into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect. It is to be noted that one I.J. Prameela Kumai, who was working as a Lecturer in Economics in Andhra Christian College, Guntur and was similarly situated as the petitioner in the present case filed W.P.No.5822 of 1996 for a declaration that she was entitled to be admitted into grant-in-aid from the date of her initial appointment. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court and W.A.No.1225 of 1998 preferred by the Government was dismissed by judgment dated 3.8.1999 holding that when a person was working as a Lecturer in a regular post with requisite qualifications and experience he is entitled for all the benefits that are attached to the post. Pursuant to the said judgment of the Division Bench, G.O.Rt.No.1302, dated 14.12.1999 was issued admitting Smt. I.J. Prameela Kumari to grant- in-aid with all retrospective benefits. Following the said order, W.P.No.14852 of 2003 filed by one Smt. K. Jhansi Lakshmi, Lecturer in Ideal College of Arts & Science, Kakinada was also allowed by order dated 24.9.2003 with a direction to the respondents to admit her to grant-in-aid post from the date of her appointment with all consequential benefits. Similar orders were also passed in favour of Sri C.V. Ramana Reddy, Lecturer in Economics, B.T. College, Madanapalle, vide G.O.Rt.No.364, dated 8.4.2001. Having regard to the above orders, the contention on behalf of the respondents that there are no precedents of admitting to grant-in- aid with retrospective effect cannot be accepted. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in a grant-in-aid post and she possessed requisite qualifications and experience. Hence, as held by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1225 of 1998, she is entitled for all the benefits that are attached to the post in which she was appointed. Since she was granted the scale of pay w.e.f. 1.3.1996, there is no justification to deny the monetary benefits to the petitioner at least from the said date. As noticed above, by order dated 4.2.2004 while rejecting the request of the petitioner, the respondents failed to assign any reasons as to why the petitioner should not be entitled for admission into grant-in-aid with retrospective effect. Absence of reasons is one of the grounds for judicial review since the law is well-settled that failure to assign reasons would result in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, on that ground alone, the order dated 4.2.2004 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order of the 1st respondent dated 4.2.2004 is set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner to grant-in-aid w.e.f. 1.3.1996 with all consequential benefits such as seniority and arrears of salary as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.04.2009 gbs