THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO W.P.No.23342,33204,24457,23689,23480, 23386, 29550, 24348, 24224, 24104, 23930, 21762 of 2010 & 6677 of 2011 ORDER Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. All these writ petitions have been filed questioning the notifications dated 11-8-2010 & 13-08-2010 issued by 1st & 2nd respondents published in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper and Sakshi Daily News Paper for appointment of Contract Residential Teacher/Part Time Teacher as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to regularize the services against the posts available under the SSA scheme. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed as Contract Residential Teachers under the scheme CRT/PRT on various dates under the scheme of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) and some of them are renewed from time to time and all of them are working without any remark. All the petitioners are qualified with degree and post graduation along with B.Ed., and Pundit Training. The District Project Office Rajive Vidya Mission, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Kurnool issued paper notifications on 11-08-2010 & 13-08-2010 inviting applications for the posts of CRT/PT for appointment of teachers on contract basis. The said publications were given without giving priority to the teachers who are appointed and working in the said contract posts for many years under the scheme. The respondents failed to renew the services of the petitioners and to give any explanation to the persons who are already working under the scheme. The petitioners have been working on contractual basis ever since the date of appointment. Since those vacancies are notified, the services of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons have to be regularized under the scheme. Some of the similarly situated teachers have approached this Court by filing WP No.21762 of 2010 along with WPMP No.27680 of 2010 and the WPMP was dismissed and that the petitioners therein filed W.A.No.668 of 2010 along with WAMP No.1602 of 2010 and a Division Bench of this Court passed interim order directing the respondents to continue the petitioners in the posts and reserve 15 posts. Therefore, the petitioners sought the relief to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in the posts by suspending the notifications dated 11-8-2010 and 13-08- 2010. Counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the Government of India while sanctioning the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya (KGBV) issued physical and financial guidelines to be followed. The Government of India have also prescribed the staffing pattern of teaching staff for each of the Model-I and Model-II KGBVs and the Government of Andhra Pradesh have issued G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (SSA) Department, dated 22-08-2007 prescribing the mode of positioning the above staff in the KGBVs and conditions of their service. Subsequently, Government of Andhra Pradesh have issued revised guidelines on various aspects relating to running of KGBVs in their Memo No.21505/SSA/2009-2 Education (PE-SSA) Department, dated 22-4-2009. The Government has prescribed the procedure for recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff for KGBVs and that the vacancy position of teaching and non-teaching staff (temporary) shall be worked out by the Project Officer of RVM in consultation with the District Convenors/Officials of the Societies concerned, except in ITDA areas, where ITDA shall be undertaking the selection. The service contracts of all the teachers shall be terminated every year on the last working day of the KGBV. The State Project Officer, Rajiv Vidya Mission (SSA), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has issued a schedule of recruitment of staff in KGBVs for the year 2010-2011 vide proceedings in Rc.No.284/RVM/SSA/KGBV/B10/2010, dated 7-8-201, wherein all the Project Officers of RVM (SSA) were instructed to issue notification in the leading news papers inviting applications for preparing a panel for filling up the existing and future vacancies of Contract Resident Teachers (CRTs) and Physical Education Teachers(PETs) for positioning in KGBVs for the year 2010-2011. The petitioners were engaged as Part-time Teachers or Guest Teachers by the Special Officers of KGBVs during the middle of the academic year 2009- 2010. Their postings also were not approved by the District Collectors concerned. Their services were engaged as a temporary arrangement with a view that the instruction to the students should go on uninterrupted and the students should not suffer due to non-availability of a teacher. The petitioners are not eligible to be converted as Full-Time Teacher or Contract Resident Teacher and that they have no right to be converted as Full Time Teachers on par with those whose services were engaged in KGBVs with the approval of the District Collector, after subjecting them to written test and duly following the merit roster. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee, he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. This is necessary to avoid arbitrary action on the part of the appointing authority. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh and others[1]. On the same principle, he had drawn the attention of this Court in a judgment of High Court of Jharkhand, (Ritesh Ranjan and others vs State of Jharkand), wherein it is held that an ad hoc or temporary employee should not be replaced by another ad hoc or temporary employee and he must be replaced only by a regularly selected employee. He further contends that the facts and circumstances in the said case are squarely covered to the instant case on hand. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners were engaged as a temporary arrangement and they cannot claim any right of employment and their employment shall be renewable every year. He further contends that notification was issued calling for applications from the eligible candidates in respect of the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.59, School Education (SSA) Department, dated 22-08-2007. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief as sought for in these writ petitions? Before going into the merits of the case, it is to be seen that this Court while dismissing WPMP No.27680 of 2010 in WP No.21762 of 2010, dated 2-9-2010, observed that if the operation of the notification, dated 13-08-2010 is suspended, the respondents, will not be able to process the selection of teachers on full time basis and therefore, such a process should not be withheld. In appeal, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.668 of 2010, dated 15-09-2010 granted interim direction to continue the petitioners in the posts and reserve 15 posts. Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioners are continuing in the posts as on today. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly concedes that the conditions prescribed in the notification are contrary to the guidelines issued by the authorities for selection mode. He further submits that the petitioners can appear before the competent authority as per the notification for considering their eligibility for the posts advertised and the respondents will certainly take into consideration their eligibility and the marks etc., basing on the documents submitted by the petitioners while appointing them. Admittedly, all the posts are filled up pursuant to the said notification and left over posts are kept in abeyance pursuant to the pendency of the writ petition. The appointment of the petitioners is not against the sanctioned strength of the institutions and their services are renewable every year. The petitioners did not file any appointment orders. More over, the respondents also did not file the same, but admitted the employment of the petitioners as on this day. However, learned counsel for the respondents has given assurance that the respondents stick to the notifications impugned in these writ petitions and that the petitioners are at liberty to apply for the posts under the said notification and the respondents shall consider their applications and their eligibility strictly in accordance with the notification. All the writ petitions are filed questioning the notifications dated 11-8-2010 & 13-8-2010, but the petitioners did not mention how the said notifications are in violation of principles of natural justice and unconstitutional either in the writ petitions or during the course of arguments. However, selections are completed pursuant to the said notifications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said notifications are void and violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners are given an opportunity to appear for the interview as per their qualification. It is needless to mention that the respondents are directed to continue the petitioners till completion of the process of selection as per the notifications. At the fag end of the matter, it is represented that some of the petitioners were selected pursuant to the impugned notifications and their services may be continued. It is needless to mention that their services will always be safeguarded as they were selected pursuant to the impugned notifications. With these observations, all the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J rkk Dated: 15-12-2011 [1] (1992) 4 SCC 118