IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 580 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 10/02/2009 in WP NO : 2272 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V, Hima Bindu W/o. Devananda Reddy Polavaram Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Secretary, APREI SOCIETY (REGD) (Andhra Pradesh Residential Education Society) Gagan Vihar, III Rd Floor, Nampally Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, Kasturibha Gandhi Balikala Vidyalayam K.V. Palli Village and Mandal, Chittoor. (R2 is formal party) .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.INENIVENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Division Bench of this Judgment follows 2nd page Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI A N D THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 580 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed questioning the order dated 10-02-2009 in WP.No. 2272 of 2009 passed by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge while dismissing the main writ petition observed that since the appellant remained absent un-authorisedly for more than one year and period of contract has been expired by afflux of time, therefore, no direction can be given to the respondents to admit the appellant into service. 2. The main relief sought in the writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in not permitting the petitioner to attend the classes in Kasturiba Gandhi Balikala Vidyalayam, K.V.Palli village and Mandal, Chittoor district, as illegal, arbitrary and against law and consequently to direct the respondents to join the petitioner by granting permission with continuity of service and all other benefits. s 3. The factual matrix of the case are as follows: The first respondent issued notification to fill up the vacancies of TGT Posts on 16-6-2005 inviting applications from eligible candidates. As per notification issued by the first respondent, the appellant is a qualified and eligible candidate had applied for the same. After receiving applications from eligible candidates, the first respondent issued Proceedings RC.NO.9566/A2-2/2005 dated 27-8- 2005 calling to attend the Office of the Secretary, A.P.R.E.I. Society, Ganganvihar, Opposite Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad on 29- 8-2005 at 09:00 a.m. along with all relevant certificates in original for verification. In pursuance of the said proceedings issued by the first respondent, the appellant attended interview along with her original certificates, after verification and fulfilling the other conditions as stipulated in the notification, the first respondent appointed her as TGT Mathematics teacher to teach VI to VIII class in second respondent’s school under the management of the society is against roster point of O.C. The provisional selection is made subject to confirmation etc., satisfying the eligibility criteria as per notification and the first respondent advised her to produce the study certificate for confirmation of the local area. According to the instructions of the first respondent, she produced all educational qualification certificates before the second respondent and thereafter on 29-8-2005 her appointment orders were issued and she joined in the second respondent school. While things stood thus, during the month of December 2006, she had applied maternity leave for four months when she was carrying and doctors expected her delivery on 30-1-2007 and advised her to take bed rest and she was hospitalized from 18-12-2007. After completion of maternity leave, she joined duty on 16-3-2007 through second respondent and she worked in the school till 30-6-2007. Thereafter during the month of July 2007 her health condition was not permitted her to attend the school due to the post effects of maternity, therefore, the doctors advised her about one year treatment for recovery. Thus, she applied leave from 01-7-2007 to 31-7-2008. Thereafter, she made representation along with medical certificate and requested the respondents to permit her to work as CRT Mathematics and explained her health problem but the second respondent instructed to obtain permission from the first respondent. She approached the first respondent and sought permission to teach the classes in the said school but the respondents are not according permission to work in the said school. Therefore, she filed the above writ petition and she also submitted that some of the similarly situated teachers filed WP.No.13123 of 2008 questioning the action of respondents in not granting permission to the teachers to join their respective schools. This court by an order dated 18-7-2008 passed in WP.No.13123 of 2008 held that in case the vacancy against which the petitioner was engaged in the year 2005 is still vacant, the case of the petitioner shall be considered, as and when the respondents take up the steps to fill up it. 4. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the appellant is not entitled for re-appointment because her tenure has been expired and that the notification for filling up the post of CRT Mathematics teacher in the second respondent school is likely to be issued within a short period and therefore, the appellant cannot be taken into service now. 5. Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri K.Durga Prasad, the learned standing counsel representing the first respondent-AP Residential Education Society. 6. It is an admitted fact that the appellant remained absent for one year, her services were terminated and moreover her tenure was also expired by afflux of time. The counsel for the appellant argued that though the appellant was appointed on contract basis on a year to year, she was continued in service and during the pregnancy period she applied maternity leave and thereafter she fell ill and therefore, she could not report to duty till 31-7-2007. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the post of CRT Mathematics teacher is still vacant in the second respondent-school and that some of the similarly situated teachers filed WP.No.13123 of 2008 questioning the action of respondents in not granting permission to the teachers to join their respective schools and this court by an order dated 18-7-2008 passed in WP.No.13123 of 2008 held that in case the vacancy against which the petitioner was engaged in the year 2005 is still vacant, the case of the petitioner shall be considered, as and when the respondents take up the steps to fill up it. But the learned standing counsel contends that notification for filling up the post of CRT Mathematics teacher in the second respondent school is likely to be issued within a short period and more so the appellant is not entitled for re-appointment because her tenure has been expired and now the appellant cannot be taken into service. Be that as it may, in case the vacancy against which the appellant was engaged is still lying vacant, the case of the appellant shall be considered, as and when the respondents take steps to fill it. Under the above circumstances, we make it clear that this order will not come in the way, as there is a fresh notification for such appointment. 7. With the above observation, the writ appeal is accordingly disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI. ____________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZUL PURKAR. 29-04-2009. I s L