THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO W.A.No.1095 of 2010 JUDGMENT (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.06.2006 passed by a learned single Judge in W.P.No.27004 of 2003 and C.C.No.1385 of 2005. 2. In pursuance of the advertisement issued by respondent Nos.6 to 9-Schools to fill up the vacancies for the posts of Aided Secondary Grade Teachers as per the rules notified in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education Department dated 01.01.1994, vide proceedings dated 29.11.1996, respondent Nos.1 to 5 applied for the same, appeared for recruitment test on different dates and were selected. During pendency of the approval of their selection before the third appellant, appointment orders were issued in their favour and they joined duty on different dates. While so, the third appellant passed orders dated 03.04.2002 stating that vide letter dated 28.03.2001 they had instructed all the managements to stop selections. When the said order was challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 5 by filing writ petitions, this Court set aside the said order and remitted the matter to the third appellant for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the third appellant passed an order dated 16.06.2003 stating that since the managements appointed teachers on their own wish and will without following the rules, regulations and the correct selection procedure as per G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, the department was not responsible for the irregular selection of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in aided institutions. The said order was challenged by respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the impugned writ petition, wherein this Court gave an interim direction to the appellants to pay salaries to respondent Nos.1 to 5 vide order dated 29.12.2003 in W.P.M.P.No.34201 of 2003. Since the said direction has not been complied with by the appellants, respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed C.C.No.1385 of 2005. By combining the impugned writ petition and the contempt case, the learned single Judge disposed of the matter setting aside the proceedings dated 16.06.2003 and directing the third appellant to examine the matter afresh, in the light of the observations made in the order, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the management of respondent Nos.6 to 9 Schools and respondent Nos.1 to 5 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 4. In proceedings dated 16.06.2003, which are impugned in the writ petition, the third appellant informed that as per Rule 12(5) of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, all aided schools should require a nominee of the District Educational Officer concerned not below the rank of the Deputy Educational Officer in the staff selection committee, but the managements of respondent Nos.6 to 9 Schools have not followed the said Rule, apart from Sub rule 6 of Rule 12 of the said G.O., to follow the rule of reservation and women reservation and also the managements make the appointments without obtaining the approval of the competent authority. Respondent Nos.6 to 9-Schools stated in the counter- affidavit that despite their request to send his nominee to participate in the selection process, the third appellant did not send his nominee on the scheduled date and that due to dire necessity to fill up the posts, they have proceeded with the selection. In the impugned order the learned single Judge observed that as per Rules 13(1) and (3) of G.O.Ms.No.1, there should be composition of staff selection committee and the quorum for the staff selection committee shall be four and therefore, even in the absence of the nominee of the District Educational Officer, as required under Rule 13(1)(e), there could still be a quorum for the staff selection committee. 5. Insofar as the rule of reservation is concerned, as no woman candidate applied for the post of Secondary Grade Teachers, there is no question of selecting a women candidate. Further, though the management of respondent Nos.6 to 9 Schools sent through proper channel the selection list to the third appellant for approval, without approving the selection list even after a lapse of four years, the third appellant informed the respondent schools to stop selections vide proceedings dated 23.03.2001, which was ultimately set aside by this Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondent Schools and thereafter issued the impugned proceedings. Therefore, we are of the view that since the selection process had completed in February, 1997, the selection of respondent Nos.1 to 5 cannot be vitiated by virtue of the impugned proceedings and the learned single Judge has rightly recorded the reasons for dismissal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ NOOTY RAMA MOHANA RAO, J Date:12.12.2011 sj