*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition No.6103 of 2010 % 12-09-2011 # Farhat Anjum ..petitioner And $ The District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar District & others ..Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Anji Reddy ^Counsel for respondents . : GP for Education RRs 1 & 2 < Gist: > Head Note: Citations: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.6103 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 3rd respondent-institution, admitted to grant-in-aid; in the year 1994. Her appointment against unaided vacancy was approved in the year 1998 by the District Educational Officer, the 1st respondent herein. On an application submitted by the 3rd respondent, and on the recommendations made by the respondents 1 and 2, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 21-02-2003, admitting 5 SGT posts in the 3rd respondent-institution, into grant-in-aid. The 1st respondent submitted proposals for absorption of the 5 teachers, including the petitioner against aided vacancies. The Commissioner and Director of School Education the 2nd respondent, however, accorded permission for absorption of 4 teachers, excluding the petitioner, and consequential orders were issued by the 1st respondent on 18-08-2003. In those orders, it was mentioned that separate orders would be issued in respect of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders have been passed, and she seeks appropriate directions in this regard. A counter-affidavit is filed, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The fact, that the petitioner was appointed against an unaided vacancy; her appointment was approved in the year 1998, and that her name was recommended for absorption against one of the aided vacancies, sanctioned through G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 21-02- 2003; is admitted. It is, however, stated that while considering the proposals for approval of 5 teachers, the 2nd respondent wanted to know as to whether there is any teacher, senior to the petitioner, left out for approval, and awaiting information on that, approval was accorded for absorption of 4 other teachers. The 1st respondent is said to have informed the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 02-02-2008, that a teacher, by name, Smt. Sarwar Sultana, who was senior to the petitioner, was selected as SG teacher in District Selection Committee in 2002, and resigned the job in the 3rd respondent-institution. The reason for non- approval of the name of the petitioner for absorption against aided vacancy, is said to be the ban imposed by the Government in the year 2004. Heard Sri Anji Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. It is a matter of record that the appointment of the petitioner against unaided vacancy was approved in the year 1998, and that as many as 5 posts in the 3rd respondent-institution were admitted to grant-in-aid, through G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 21-02-2003. Soon after the G.O. was issued, the 1st respondent submitted proposals for absorption of 5 teachers, including the petitioner, against aided vacancies. The proposals for absorption of 4 teachers were approved by the Commissioner, through proceedings dated 23-07-2003, and consequential orders were issued by the 1st respondent on 18-08-2003. As regards the petitioner, the 1st respondent observed as under: “Regarding approval of Sri Farhat Anjum, separate orders will be issued soon after receipt of clearance from Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad”. From the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents 1 and 2, it is evident that the 2nd respondent wanted to verify as to whether there was any teacher, senior to the petitioner left out in the process. The record discloses that, one teacher, who was senior to the petitioner, left the service in the year 2002 itself. On the ground that the reply was not submitted within time, by the 1st respondent, and that the ban came into force in the meanwhile, the petitioner was denied the benefit of absorption. It is just unthinkable as to why the office of the 1st respondent has taken so much of time to reply on a small query, as to whether there existed any teacher, who was senior to the petitioner, at the relevant point of time. There did not exist any teacher senior to the petitioner, since Smt.Sarwar Sultana left the services in the year 2002 itself. For the delay on the part of the 1st respondent in answering the query of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner cannot be penalized. It is no doubt true that the Government imposed ban in the year 2004. However, much prior to that, not only the petitioner acquired eligibility, but also her case was submitted for approval, for absorption. There are scores of instances where approval was accorded, even after the ban came into force, if the proposals against aided vacancies were initiated and pending before the ban was imposed. There was absolutely no justification for denying the benefit of absorption to the petitioner. In several cases, this Court has taken the view that the ban does not operate in respect of cases, that were pending consideration, before it came into force. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, and the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders as regards the absorption of the petitioner against aided vacancy, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without reference to the imposition or existence of ban, that came into force in the year 2004. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.12-09-2011. Note: L.R copy to be marked. (B/O) KO