THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.8892 OF 2004 O R D E R Heard the petitioner, who appeared as party-in-person and the Government Pleaders for Education and School Education for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner, as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he was appointed as para teacher on 5.8.1998 since then working as Teacher and Head Master of DEEP., M.P. Elementary School at Sai Nagar, Timmapuram in Rayavaram Post of Nuzendala Mandal in Guntur District. His grievance is that though he worked teacher, he was not being paid salary and therefore, sought for a direction to the respondents to pay his salary on par with regular teachers. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has referred to various representations including the one made to the President of India dated 23.2.2001 and further stated that was he appointed as S.G. Teacher dated 21.11.2000. Therefore, he sought for a direction for payment of salaries to him on par with regular teachers. 3. In the counter affidavits filed by the 2nd respondent – District Educational Officer, Guntur and the 4th respondent – State Project Director, APDPEP, Hyderabad, while denying the averments made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner was engaged as para teacher by the School Education Committee, Thimmapuram of Nuzendla with an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month, according to the needs of the school. The petitioner was not appointed either by the District Educational Officer or by the Additional Project Co-coordinator. The Additional Project Coordinator has to release the honorarium to the para teachers based on the proposals received from the Mandal Educational officer concerned. Accordingly, the honorarium payable to the petitioner was released by obtaining demand draft, which was sent to the School Educational Committee, Thimmapuram of Nuzsendla. But the petitioner refused to take the demand draft for Rs.4,161/- for the period he worked from 5.8.1998 to 23.12.1998 and demanded that he should be paid salary on par with the other regular secondary grade teachers, for which he not eligible. He is not eligible for any salary, but he is eligible for an honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month for the period he worked. It is submitted that a para teacher can be engaged in a regular school due to the need of the institution with a honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month to be paid by the School Education Committee. The petitioner has been falsely representing to all the higher officials for payment of his salaries. The petitioner approached the A. P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.2360/2002, which was disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner filed C.C.No.347/2003 and the same was closed holding that the petitioner has produced fake documents. The petitioner is going on representing to the higher authorities that his salaries are not paid by the Additional Project Co-coordinator. He also filed the above referred O.A. in the APAT by producing fake orders that he was appointed as a teacher. The orders produced by the petitioner were confirmed as bogus and fake by the State Project Director, DPEP A.P., Hyderabad. The State Project Director, DPEP, A.P., Hyderabad in his proceedings in Rc.No.111/DPEP/B6/2000 dated 12.5.2004 has issued instructions to file a criminal case against the petitioner for producing bogus/forged letters and accordingly a criminal complaint has been filed before the Station House Officer, Law and Order, Nagarampalem of Guntur. 4. In the additional counter affidavit filed by the District Educational Officer, Guntur, while reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was informed vide office proceedings Rc.No.1 Spl./A1/DOEO/98 dated 19.6.2006 that the request for payment of regular salary with effect from 5.8.1998 by considering him as secondary grade teacher is not feasible as per rules. 5. No reply has been filed denying the averments made in the counter affidavits. 6. From the material available on record, it could be seen that there is not dispute that the petitioner was appointed as para teacher from 5.8.1998 and it is stated in the counter affidavits that he worked for the period from 5.8.1998 to 23.12.1998. The case of the respondents is that a para teacher who is also called Vidya Volunter, can be appointed by the School Education Committee, according to the needs of the school. A para teacher is entitled to a honorarium of Rs.1,000/- per month and in the counter affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was issued demand draft for Rs.4,161/- towards his honorarium, but the same was refused by the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that he should be paid regular salary with effect from 5.8.1998 by considering him as secondary grade teacher. In the counter affidavit it is stated that his request was not feasible as per rules and accordingly the District Educational Officer has issued proceedings in Rc.No.1 Spl/A1/DPEP/98 dated 19.6.2006. 7. Further, the claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as para teacher by proceedings dated 5.8.1998 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Education (Prog- 1) Department, District Primary Education Programme and in the said proceedings, it is stated that the basic payment of salary would be from DEPE funds and for other infrastructure facilities separate orders will be issued in due course. The petitioner has relied on appoint orders dated 21.11.2000 wherein also the basic pay and allowances were sought to be drawn from DPEP funds. In the counter affidavit and in the additional counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is categorically stated that the letters dated 5.8.1998 and 21.11.2000 entitling him for salary from the DPEP funds, are fake and no such orders were issued to the petitioner and therefore, a criminal was also registered against him. It is also stated that the petitioner has also approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal with fake documents and the O.A.No.2360/2002 filed by the petitioner was disposed of at the admission stage and the Contempt Case No.347/2003 filed by the petitioner was also closed holding that the petitioner has produced fake documents. 8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that there are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be delved by this court and as per the counter affidavits it is admitted that the petitioner worked only for the period from 5.8.1998 to 23.12.1998 and accordingly he was issued honorarium by drawing a demand draft, but the same was refused by the petitioner and that his claim for salary on par with second grade teacher, was not feasible as per rules and accordingly he was issued proceedings dated 19.6.2006 rejecting his request. 9. The petitioner submitted that the criminal case in C.C.No.275/2004 filed by the respondents on the file of Special Magistrte of First Class for Excise, FAC Special Mobile Magistrate, Guntur, ended in acquittal by judgment dated 10.1.2006 and the appeal filed by the State before this court was also dismissed in Crl.A(SR).No.25586/2007 dated 16.6.2008. Therefore, he contended that the averment of the respondents that he produced fake documents is incorrect. A perusal of the order dated 16.6.2008 passed by this court in Crl.A(Sr).No.25586/2007 shows that the appeal was filed with a delay and as the State could not satisfy this court with sufficient cause for condoning the delay, this court dismissed the delay petition and consequently the appeal was also dismissed. However, as already noted above, there are disputed questions of fact, as the respondents are disputed the proceedings relied on by the petitioner, which cannot be gone into by this court. Similarly, the other miscellaneous petitions by the petitioner, which are disputed by the respondents in the counter affidavits, also cannot be gone into by this court. 10. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ----------------------------- -- 15—09—2011