IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3970 of 2006 Between: 1 Srikakulam Diocese Society (A Society registered under the Societies Act) Srikakulam, rep by Deputy Manager, Rev. Thomas Christopher. 2 Datoju Satyanarayan Satish S/o Babji r/o D. No. 49-46-7, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam 3 Yandava Ramu S/o Dali Naidu R/o Kaspa Street, Palkonda, Srikakulam District 4 Bobbili Chiranjeevi Rao S/o Prakasa Rao R/o Krishnapalli Parvathipuram Vizianagaram District 5 Gavara Surya Praksa Rao S/o Sundranarayana Rao R/o Tulagam Hiramandalam, Srikakulam District 6 Midathana Narayana Rao S/o Siva Ram Seetharampuram, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagram District 7 Arikitota Kishore Kumar S/o A. Srinivasa Rao R/o Pedabondapalli, Parvatipuram Mandla, Vizianagaram District 8 Lekkala Sreenivasu S/o Subrahmanyam R/o D. No. 2-80, Old Pendurthi, Visakhaptnam 9 Jamma Govindaraju S/o M. Sree Ramulu Gowda Street, Belagam, Parvathipuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District 10 Yammala China Raju S/o . Surayya R/o Balagudaba Parvtipuram Mandal. Vizianagaram District 11 V.T. Sanyasi Rao Bandaru S/o Bandaru Satyanarayana R/o Deguva Street, Jami Vizianagaram District 12 Bantu Bharathi D/o Chinapoli naidu R/o Reddi Street, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District 13 Kola Kavitha Sravanthi D/o K. Prakasam r/o Indira New Colony, Pravathipuram, Vizianagaram District 14 Tamminana Sandhya rAni d/o Mohanadtha R/o 5th B.N. APSP Chintalavalasa, Vizianagaram District 15 Victoria Francis D/o Hary Lazar Francis R/o 12-4-38, Vishakapatnam 16 K.V.S. Lakshmi W/o K.P. Naidu MIG 112, Phase-II, Vudu Colony Vizianagaram District 17 Bantu Dasu S/o B. Prakasam R/o Bantuvani Valasa, Philipnagar, Pravathipura,Vizianagaram District 18 Varghese Vigi Mattathil W/o T. James R/o Neyyala Street, Parvathipuram Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep by Secretary,' Department of School Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, East Godavari District 4. The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order declaring the inaction on the part of the Regional Joint Director of school Education, Respondent No.3 herein, in not giving his approval to the selection of the petitioners 2 to 4 as teachers and District Educational officer, Vizianagaram, Respondent No.4 herein, in not giving his approval to the selection of petitioners 5 to 18 as teachers in the schools of the of the 1st petitioner society pursuant to the proceedings in Rc. No. 78/B1/2003 dated 6-8- 2003 of District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram, Respondent No.4 herein, according the permission to 1st petitioner society for filling up the vacant posts in the schools as illegal and void and direct the issuance of approval orders forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.DHARMESH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.3970 of 2006 ORDER: The 1st respondent had established several educational institutions in Vizianagaram and Srikakulam districts and the said institutions are admitted to grant-in-aid. The District Educational Officer, the 4th respondent herein, is said to have issued the proceedings, dated 30.05.2003, informing the managements of the aided institutions in the district, to send proposals for appointing the candidates against the existing vacancies. The 1st respondent, in turn, submitted its proposals on 04.08.2003 seeking permission to fill about 25 posts of teachers of various categories. The 4th respondent issued proceedings according permission to take further steps to fill the vacancies in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. It is stated that a Selection Committee, comprising of the representatives of the Government, as contemplated under law, was constituted and written test was conducted on 29.08.2003 and 30.08.2003 for different categories of teachers. In all, 734 candidates are said to have responded. The interviews are said to have taken place on 30.08.2003 and a list of 17 selected candidates was said to have been displayed on the same day. On the basis of the reports published in the local newspapers, initially, an enquiry was got conducted by the District Educational Officer, the 4th respondent herein, and thereafter by the Sub-Collector, Parvathipuram, at the instance of the District Collector. The District Collector directed for cancellation of the selections on the ground that certain irregularities have taken place. The 1st petitioner filed W.P.No.22135 of 2003 in this Court and the same was allowed on 27.07.2004 holding that the orders passed by the District Collector are without any power or authority and the same was set aside. Thereafter, the matter was again got enquired by the Regional Joint Director, the 3rd respondent herein. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 18 are said to be the selected candidates. The grievance of the petitioners is that though several years have elapsed since the conclusion of the selection process, the respondents did not accord approval and, thereby, the work in the institution is suffering and the selected candidates are put to hardship. Therefore, necessary directions are sought against the respondents to accord approval. On behalf of the respondents, a common counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that prescribed procedure was not followed in the context of conducting the written test, valuation of answer scripts, fixation of the roaster points etc. It is also stated that the complaint submitted by one of the applicants has been enquired into by the Lokayukta and the final outcome is awaited. Sri E.Manohar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that though a doubt was expressed as to the manner in which the selection process has taken place, several reports that have emerged in the enquiries have revealed that there were no lapses. He contends that when the selections were made after obtaining the permission of the competent authority and through a properly constituted Selection Committee, there is no justification for the respondents in not according approval. Learned Government Pleader for School Education, on the other hand, submits that the petitioners do not have any right to insist that the appointments must be approved. He takes exception to petitioners 2 to 18 in approaching this Court seeking relief. It is also stated that the matter is being verified at various stages and when a final picture emerges, a decision would be taken on the matter. The record discloses that the 4th respondent accorded permission for the 1st respondent to fill the existing vacancies in its aided institutions. Several candidates responded to the notification issued for this purpose. For the written test, 734 candidates appeared. The written test as well as the interview took place on 29-08-2003 and 30-08-2003 and a list of selected candidates was displayed. It is no doubt true that some doubts were expressed as to the legality and propriety of the selection process by various authorities and detailed enquiries were also got conducted on those aspects. A matter of this nature cannot be kept pending for years together. Existence of such a large number of vacancies in the schools would have their own impact on the quality of education. The respondents have to take a final decision in the matter of according approval. As of now, enquiries have been got conducted by the officials of the Revenue Department, officials of the Education Department and by the Lokayukta. Five years is fairly a long time, viewed from any angle. The matter cannot, however, brook any further delay. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to take a final decision in the matter of according approval for the appointments said to have been made by the 1st petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 11.06.2008 v v To 1. The Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Department of School Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2. The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4. The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram 5 2 CCs to 6 2 CD copies.