THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 15210 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for issuance of writ of certiorari and call for records and quash the proceedings in R.C.No.5470/A1/2005 dated 30.04.2008, and direct the respondents to regularize/absorb the petitioner’s services as Secondary Grade Teacher in Aided post in respondent No.6 school from the date of initial appointment i.e. 16.06.1986 with all consequential benefits. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. The case, in brief, is: The petitioner is working as a teacher in the 6th respondent school from 16.06.1986 in an unaided post, and that she is qualified for the purpose of absorption in the aided post in the cadre of Secondary Grade teacher against the vacancy available in the 6th respondent school. It is also her case that three (03) aided posts of Secondary Grade teachers are vacant in the school and the 6th respondent, through respondent Nos.4 and 5 sent proposal for absorption of her services in the year 2001, but the authorities failed to take any action. The matter was brought to the notice of 1st respondent and upon the directions of the respondent No.1 vide Memo No.12209/PS-1/2003-1 dated 19.08.2004, the 4th respondent issued proceedings vide Rc.No.14900/E3/2004 dated 16.11.2004, constituting a committee to visit the respondent No.6 school and submit a detail report in connection with absorption. However, respondent No.3 rejected the proposal vide proceedings in Rc.No.5470/A1/2005 dated 14.09.2005, on the ground that her initial appointment to the unaided post was not in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.524, Education, dated 20.12.1988, which came into effect from 07.01.1989 for the reason that the respondent No.6 has not created unaided post with the permission of the respondent No.1 and hence her services cannot be regularized. It is her further case that G.O.Ms.No.524, Education dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Education dated 01.01.1994 have no application to her case as she was appointed on 16.06.1986 and the said G.Os which have been issued after her appointment would only have prospective effect and not retrospective effect. Further the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have addressed letters dated 29.04.2006 and 20.05.2006 bringing to the notice of respondent No.3 that the said G.Os. cannot be applicable to the instant case as she was appointed much prior to the issuance of those G.Os. The petitioner also filed W.P.No.24722 of 2006 in this Court questioning the rejection order passed by respondent No.3, and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the respondent No.3 to reconsider her case after examining applicability of the said G.Os dated 20.12.1988 and 01.01.1994. Consequently, respondent No.3 passed the impugned proceedings No.5470/A1/2005 dated 30.04.2008. Hence, this writ petition. This Court, by order dated 04.02.2008 disposed of the WP No.24722 of 2006, observing as under:- Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on merits, the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for absorption into aided vacancy as Secondary Grade Teacher in the fourth respondent school after examining applicability of the above G.Os. and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. It is clear from the order passed by this court in the said WP, that the court has directed the respondent No.4 therein, to examine the applicability of the said G.O.s. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, the 3rd respondent herein, issued proceedings Rc.No.5470/A1/2005 dated 30.04.2008, rejecting the case of the petitioner which is impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have taken the plea that the petitioner is not entitled for absorption as per G.O.Ms.No.524, Education dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Education dated 01.01.1994, and that the said G.Os. have no application to the case of the petitioner. The counsel further submits that another reason for rejection of the case of the petitioner is that there is a ban on recruitment, imposed vide Government Memo No.12080/COSE/2004-11 dated 20.10.2004. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently in GOVERNMENT OF A.P. AND OTHERS v. SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL AND OTHERS[1], the Apex Court observed that: “Even the approval which was granted for filling up the vacant aided posts, had been granted after due scrutiny as to the requirements of the schools in question. Since it is well settled that administrative orders are prospective in nature, unless they are expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. The fact that remains undisputed is that the selections in question were made much prior to the orders of the Government, dated 20.10.2004 imposing ban on the appointments.” The Government Memo No.14054/PS 1/2001-02 dated 10.09.2003 reveals that the G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20.12.1988 has no application to minority institutions and there are no specific rules for appointment of the staff in aided posts at that time. Having held so, the Government has directed the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad, and District Educational Officer, Hyderabad to implement the orders verifying the strength and attendance of the students of the school. Having regard to the submissions made by both the counsel, two issues emerge:- (1) Applicability of G.O.Ms.No.524, Education dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Education dated 01.01.1994, which say that the petitioner is not entitled for absorption. (2) Applicability of ban imposed vide Government Memo No.12080/COSE/2004-11 dated 20.10.2004. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in the 6th respondent school in the year 1986. The proposals for absorption of her post as grant-in-aid was sent to respondent No.1 through respondents 4 and 5. However, respondent No.3 rejected the case of the petitioner citing the G.O.Ms.No.524, Education dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Education dated 01.01.1994, and Memo No.12080/COSE/2004-11 dated 20.10.2004, whereunder ban was imposed on absorptions. It is not in dispute that, the Government vide Memo No.14054/PS 1/2001-02 dated 10.09.2003, held that the appointment of the petitioner was made much earlier to the issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.524, Education dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Education dated 01.01.1994. With regard to the imposition of ban vide Memo No.12080/COSE/2004-11 dated 20.10.2004, the Apex Court held that the said ban can only be prospectively effected and not retrospectively. The petitioner was appointed much prior to the issuance of the said G.Os., and the ban imposed by the Government vide Memo dated 20.10.2004 cannot be retrospectively effected, and since there is no reference in the impugned proceedings about the Government Memo No.14054/PS 1/2001-02 dated 10.09.2003, wherein it was categorically averred that the case of the petitioner was directed to be considered for absorption on humanitarian grounds as the appointment was made much earlier to the said G.O. No.524 dated 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994, the said G.O.s dated 20.12.1988 and 01.01.1994 and the ban imposed vide Memo dated 20.10.2004 have no application to the petitioner’s case and hence, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the proceedings in R.C.No.5470/A1/2005 dated 30.04.2008 are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 20th December, 2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days B/o KSM [1] (2011) 9 Supreme Court Cases 613