THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.158 of 2012 Dated:24.11.2011 Between: The Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another .. Appellants And Smt.B.Shriromani and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.158 of 2012 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The first respondent herein/petitioner in W.P.No.14625 of 2008 was appointed as Teacher on 01.09.1983 in Kanya Patashala High School, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District and worked up to 01.09.2003. After putting 20 years of service, she made an application to the authorities concerned for voluntary retirement, on health grounds. Correspondence took place between her and the authorities concerned regarding whether to accept her application for voluntary retirement or not. Meanwhile, on 08.10.2004 she addressed a letter to the second petitioner herein – District Educational Officer (DEO), Ranga Reddy District, stating that she recovered from sickness and requested to cancel her voluntary retirement and permit her to join duty. In turn, the DEO asked her to submit Medical Fitness Certificate and in response thereto, she submitted the same on 06.10.2004, but she was not permitted to join duty and, ultimately, the DEO through proceedings dated 29.04.2005, accorded permission to her to go on voluntary retirement with effect from 01.09.2003 A.N. on domestic affairs. Therefore, the first respondent submitted a representation on 13.02.2008 to the Director of School Education to allow her to join duty and since no action has been taken, she filed W.P.No.14625 of 2008. The appellants herein/respondents therein filed a detailed counter in writ petition stating that as the voluntary retirement permission has been accorded to the first respondent on her own request, she cannot be taken back into service, as there are no rules in existence in this regard. The learned single Judge, by an order dated, 23.04.2010, allowed the said writ petition setting aside the proceedings dated 29.04.2005 and 12.02.2008 and directed the appellants herein to reinstate the first respondent into service forthwith with all attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein filed the present writ appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Since the first respondent expressed her willingness to withdraw her voluntary retirement application and requested to join duty, prior to acceptance of her voluntary retirement by the DEO, the DEO ought to have considered her withdrawal and would have passed appropriate orders on it. Further, the pension sanctioning authority also returned the pension proposals to re-verify her eligibility for voluntary retirement as per Rule 43(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Pension Rules, 1980, with reference to 132 days of EOL availed by her, which cannot be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of arriving the qualifying service of 20 years. Hence, the orders passed by the single Judge do not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in this appeal. 4. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 24.11.2011 KH