HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 1763 of 2004 DATE:28-01-2011 BETWEEN D.Dattu …Petitioner AND The Commissioner of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO. 1763 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing proceedings, dated 1.8.2003 so far as putting the petitioner in apprenticeship and giving him consolidated pay as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14,15,16,21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be absorbed in the vacancy caused due to conversion of Smt. Kamala Devi with effect from 24.4.1998 and he is entitled to pay the time scale since then. The petitioner is qualified in M.Sc.(Maths), B.E.d. He joined in fourth respondent-school in the year 1991 on consolidated salary of Rs.600/- per month which was enhanced from time to time and by 1995, he was drawing Rs.1,000/- per month. The Government of A.P. issued G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 1.1.1994 consequent to which, the fourth respondent-school issued paper publication and also sent a requisition letter to concerned employment exchange to sponsor the names of eligible candidates for appointment as S.G.Teacher in un-aided post of S.G.T. The petitioner was sponsored by the employment exchange, Mahaboobnagar and that he was selected and appointed on 4.12.1995 in the unaided vacancy of fourth respondent-school. The fourth respondent-school is a Government Aided High School sponsored by Indian Council of Social Welfare, to which, the District Collector is the Chairman and the District Educational Officer is the member of the Committee along with other members. While so, two vacancies of aided S.G.T. Teacher posts arose in the said school. Immediately, the petitioner made a representation to the Correspondent of fourth respondent-school with a request to absorb him in the aided post caused due to the retirement of Smt. E.V.Sukumari. Keeping in view of merit service and eligibility, the Correspondent of fourth respondent-school sent proposal to the District Educational Officer, Mahaboobnagar vide his letters, dated 30.7.1998 and 4.8.1998 recommending his case. One Smt. V.Kamala Devi requested for conversion of her post from S.G.T. to Telugu Pandit, Grade-II and the same was accepted by the District Educational Officer on 24.4.1998 and Regional Joint Director of Hyderabad also approved the said conversion by proceedings, dated 20.5.2000. Thus another clear vacancy arose in aided post in the fourth respondent- school. It is stated that the Correspondent of fourth respondent-school sent proposals for absorption of one K.Raghu Ramulu in the said aided vacancy, for which, permission was accorded for absorption of said Raghu Ramulu in the vacancy caused due to the retirement of Smt. V.Sukumari and he was absorbed in the said post with effect from 1.7.1998 by proceedings, dated 22.10.2001 and to that effect, consequential proceedings were also issued by the District Educational Officer. But no orders have been passed in the case of the petitioner in spite of representations being made since 1998 onwards. The District Educational Officer, Mahaboobnagar approved the proposals and issued proceedings in R.C.No.C1/5978/2001, dated 27.8.2002 absorbing the petitioner into grant- in-aid post and forwarded the same to the Regional Joint Director, Hyderabad for approval. But such absorption was not with effect from 24.4.1998 or from 20.5.2000. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that discrimination has been shown towards him absorbing him with effect from 28.8.2002 instead of 24.4.1998 i.e. the date on which the conversion of Smt. Kamala Devi as Telugu Pandit was taken place since one Raghu Ramulu was absorbed with effect from 1.7.1998 i.e. the date on which the vacancy arose. Pending the writ petition, petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.20704 of 2010 stating that the conversion of Smt. Kamala Devi as Telugu Pandit was taken place with effect from 24.4.1998 and therefore, he made a representation to the District Educational Officer, Mahaboobnagar requesting him to absorb him in the vacancy caused with effect from 24.4.1998. Considering the said representation, the District Educational Officer passed an order, dated 6.7.2008 approving the action of the management in absorbing him into aided post with effect from 20.5.2000, instead of 01.8.2003. However, it is stated in the said proceedings that the apprentice period of two years shall be taken into account in terms of G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 16.2.2001. But, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to be absorbed with effect from 24.4.1998 instead of 20.5.2000. It is averred that aggrieved by the said orders, dated 6.7.2008, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 25.8.2008 before the Director of School Education. In the said appeal, the Director of School Education called for the remarks from the District Educational Officer, by hi proceedings, dated 07.12.2008. As the report sent by the District Educational Officer, dated 16.2.2009 was not sufficient, the Director of School Education again addressed a letter, dated 3.6.2009 calling for detailed report from the District Educational Officer. But, according to the petitioner, so far, the District Educational Officer has not sent any report to the Director of School Education. Therefore, the petitioner filed the said W.P.M.P. seeking a direction to 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer to comply with the order of 1st respondent-Director of School Education, dated 3.6.2009. This Court by order, dated 10.8.2010 granted interim direction as prayed for. Now, the learned Government Pleader for School Education submits that since the case of the petitioner is pending consideration on the file of Director of School Education in the form of appeal and as the necessary remarks were already called for from 3rd respondent in respect of the case of the petitioner, the Director of School Education may be directed to dispose of the appeal within a reasonable time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the point that is to be adjudicated in this case is whether the petitioner is entitled for the date of absorption to be treated with effect from 24.4.1998 or with effect from 20.5.2000 as was done by the District Educational Officer or any other date. Admittedly, aggrieved by the order passed by the District Educational Officer, an appeal is preferred by the petitioner and the same is pending for adjudication before the Director/Commissioner of School Education, which is clear from the proceedings in R.C.No.2964/B4-2/2007, dated 3.6.2009, which reads as under: “The attention of the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar is invited to the reference 2nd read above, wherein the District Educational Officer was requested to examine the representations of Smt.V.Kamala Devi and Sri D.Dathu in 1st and 3rd read above, together and submit a detailed report along with specific recommendations/remarks in the matter. But the District Educational Officer has simply forwarded his previous report, Dt.20.02.2008 without remarks on the Appeal Dt.25.08.2008 of Sr. D.Dattu; but the report submitted by the District Educational Officer is incomplete. Therefore, the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar is once again requested to send specific report on the request of Smt. V.Kamala Devi and Sri D.Dathu regarding assigning the date of admission into Grant-in- aid and the reasons for assigning the absorption to Sr.Raghuramulu from 1998 in Modern High School (Aided), within 10 days to examine the matter.” Therefore, a statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority is pending for adjudication. At this stage, passing any order in the writ petition on merits would amount to allowing the parallel proceedings to continue, which is not desirable. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction. In the light of the proceedings in R.C.No.2964/B4-2/2007, dated 3.6.2009, the first respondent herein is directed to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ G.CHANDRAIAH. J JANUARY 28, 2011 Tsr