IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3266 of 2009 Between: A. Anasurya D/o. Kishtaiah R/o. Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society (REGD.), Rep. by its Secretary Gagan Vihar, III Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda Dist. 3 . .....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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the records from the respondent No.2 relating to the vacancies of the Teaching Staff of T.G.T.C.R.T. (Social), K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda District, by declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner in service as T.G.T.C.R.T (Social) K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda District as appointed by the petitioner vide Proceedings Rc No. 9566/A2- 2/2005 dt. 5-12-2005 even after submission of medical certificate dt. 8-4- 2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as T.G.T.C.R.T. (Social) K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda Dist., in the 2nd respondent School by renewing with all other benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BUCHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 3210 of 2009 Between: K. Purnima D/o. K.V. Soma Brahmam R/o. Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society (REGD.), Rep. by its Secretary Gagan Vihar, III Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda Dist. 3 The Rajiv Vidya Mission (S.S.A.) Rep. by its Project Officer Nalgonda, Nalgonda Dist. .....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 a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus call for the records from the respondent No.2 relating to the vacancies of the Teaching Staff of T.G.T.C.R.T. (Science), K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda Dist., by declaring the action of the respondent No.2 in not implementing the order of the 3rd respondent i.e. Project Officer dt.04-09-2008 vide proceedings No. Special/E/R.V.M./Nalgonda, as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as T.G.T.C.R.T. (Science) K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda Dist., in the 2nd respondent School by renewing with all other benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BUCHI BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER : Both the writ petitions can be dealt with together, as they raise common questions. Both the writ petitioners are trained graduate teachers. When the A.P. Residential Educational Institutions have been sanctioned new educational institutions by the State Government for the purpose of providing better educational facilities for the disadvantageous sections of society, the writ petitioners came to be selected and appointed on contract basis as teachers during the academic year, 2006. However, their services have been continued for the academic year, 2007 also. When their services were further continued in the academic sessions 2007 and 2008, both the writ petitioners have applied for leave, to begin with for few days, but remained absent thereafter for number of days without any intimation to the school authorities. By their continued absence, the academic schedule of the school has been thrown out of the gear. Since the writ petitioners being the contract teachers and they do not have any permanent right to the post, their contract engagement has been brought to an end, having waited for nearly 20 days from the initial spell of absence. They have instituted the writ petitions in this Court earlier, but however, no relief could be granted by this Court, as the teachers do not have any right to the post. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that these schools, which have been sanctioned by the State Government to be run by the 1st respondent society, are all situated in remote rural areas. The teachers could not get back to the school in quick time as they have taken ill and not because of any other reason. For want of proper medical help, they could not immediately resume their duties. Learned counsel further submits that even now, vacancies exist in the schools and the 1st respondent-society needs the services of trained graduate teachers. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-society very strenuously opposes the claim of the writ petitioners for renewal of their contract of employment. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the writ petitioners do not deserve any consideration at the hands of this Court, for, they have abandoned their responsibilities halfway through the academic session and consequently, caused lots of administrative problems for running the school. Learned Standing Counsel emphasizes that halfway through the academic session, it is nearly impossible to find substitutes particularly in subjects like Science and Mathematics. Therefore, for the fault of the writ petitioners, to have abandoned their employment unauthorizedly, they should not be allowed to stake a claim for any further engagement by the institution. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made at the Bar. There is no gain, saying that a contract of employment, which has been terminated entirely due to the fault of a teacher, who stayed away unauthorisedly for a number of days from performing the duties, deserves no consideration, but at the same time, one should not lose sight of the fact that the schools have been sanctioned by the State Government with a social philosophy of making available quality facilities of education to the disadvantaged sections of the society to bridge the gap between the rural and urban areas. This gap can be filled in very effectively by making available not only the physical infrastructural facilities, but also by making available quality educational infrastructural facilities. Both the writ petitioners are not only well-qualified, but have rendered more than two continuous years of service on contract basis. Therefore, it would be appropriate, in the interest of the organization itself, to allow such facilities to be utilized. If the 1st respondent-society has not made any regular recruitment of teachers, it would certainly keep entering into contractual appointments. In such a case, the 1st respondent should consider extending such a contract of employment in the current academic session 2009-2010 in favour of the writ petitioners. I, therefore, direct the 1st respondent to consider objectively and dispassionately the issue of engaging the services of the writ petitioners as teachers on contract basis for the academic session 2009-2010 and pass appropriate orders in that regard on or before 31.07.2009. It should also be made clear that any such contract of employment can be brought to an end, if the writ petitioners stay away from duty, causing dislocation to the academic schedules, beyond a period of one week during the currency of the academic schedule. With this, the writ petitions stand disposed of. No costs. _________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J Dated July 14, 2009 KSH