THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P. No. 26859 of 2010 Dated 28-10-2011 Between: Koyi Venkateswara Rao …Petitioner Vs. Government of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Women, Child and Disabled Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY W.P.No. 26859 of 2010 Dated: 28-10-2011 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) The petitioner’s application – O.A.No. 2524 of 2004 having been dismissed by the learned Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, by the order dated 26-03-2008, this writ petition is filed, aggrieved thereby. The petitioner-applicant working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in Government Residential School for Visually Handicapped, H.S. Mandir, Hindupur, Ananthapur District, had set out an involved matrix of reliefs in the application, which reads as: Hence, in the interests of the justice it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents herein to promote the applicant herein to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Physical Science)/Trained Graduate Teacher (Mathematics) by holding the action of the respondents herein in not maintaining proper Teacher Student ratio and not maintaining the cadre strength depending upon the student strength and not following the rationalization of posts and not promoting eligible SGBT Teachers to the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (Physical Science) and (Mathematics) since 1996 and taking the work load of the said post by the applicant herein as bad, illegal, unfair, arbitrary, violation of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass any such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. In the pleadings though the complaint was that one Shyam Sundar Rao, his junior was absorbed in the year 2000, having been brought into the Disabled Welfare Department from the Tribal Welfare Department, the applicant has neither chosen to implead Shyam Sundar Rao nor had claimed any specific relief against the orders of absorption granted in his favour. An interim order was passed on 16-04-2004 directing the respondents to consider the applicant’s representation dated 12-02-2004 and pass appropriate orders with regard to his claim for promotion as Trained Graduate Teacher. The petitioner had also other grievances with regard to enough posts not being created for maintaining the adequate student--teacher ratio as per extant government orders. By the order dated 01-07-2004 the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority rejected the claim of the petitioner for promotion for reasons recorded therein. Even thereafter the petitioner did not choose to challenge the rejection order dated 01-07-2004. 385 days after the said order, the applicant filed M.A.Sr.No. 10069 of 2005. This was rejected on the ground of delay. Eventually, by the order impugned, the application of the petitioner was rejected by the Tribunal for the several reasons recorded therein, inter alia: (a) that the relief sought for a direction to the respondents to create posts in order to accommodate him on the ground that the respondents failed to follow the required teacher-pupil ratio, cannot be granted as creation of posts is essentially a matter of policy choice and further is in the nature of a public interest relief; and (b) that though the applicant had complained in the pleadings about absorption of Shyam Sunder Rao, who came to the Disabled Welfare Department from the Tribal Welfare Department and was absorbed by the orders in the year 2000 and with retrospective effect, the applicant has neither chosen to implead Shyam Sundar Rao nor has claimed any specific relief in his favour and against Shyam Sundar Rao. The same contentions as were unsuccessfully urged before the Tribunal, are reiterated diligently and with complementary consequences. There are no merits. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM ___________________________________ JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Dated: 28-10-2011 Pvks/*