B GOPALAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, who are two in number, working as Record Assistants with S.S.B. Girls High School (hereinafter referred to as 'the School') since 01-09-1984 have filed this writ petition questioning the orders passed by the 2nd respondent rejecting their cases for admission into grant-in-aid posts, which were sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No. 398, Education (PS. 2) Department, dated 31-10-1994, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. On are presentation made by the 4th respondent- Correspondent of the School to the 3rd respondent, the then District Educational Officer vide proceedings Rc.No. 1/Spl/A3/ 87, dated 04-11-1987 sanctioned three unaided posts of Record Assistants from the years 1984 to 1985 along with other teaching and non-teaching posts. Thereafter, the Correspondent of the School appointed the petitioners along with one Mr.K. Subbarayudu on 01-09-1984 as Record Assistants. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent approved the appointments of the petitioners vide his proceedings Rc.No. l-Spl/A3/87, dated 06-11-1987.

(3.) While the things stood thus, the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 111, Education (SSE) Department, dated 20-03-1991 admitting the teaching and non-teaching posts in various schools to grant-in-aid under item No. 4, and along with other staff, one post of Record Assistant was admitted to grant-in-aid. In the post that was admitted to grant-in-aid. Mr. K. Subbarayudu was admitted. Subsequently, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 398, Education (PS. 2) Department, dated 31-10-1994 admitting both teaching and non-teaching posts to grant-in-aid in various schools. Under Item No. 7 apart from other posts two more posts of Record Assistants were admitted to grant-in-aid. Thereafter, when the proposals were sent by the Correspondent of the School for admitting these two petitioners to grant-in-aid, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order referred supra. The only ground on which the 2nd respondent rejected the cases of the petitioners for admitting them to grant-in-aid posts was that on the day when the D.E.O. gave orders, sanctioning three un-aided posts on 04-11-1987 the competent authority to give sanction orders is the Director of School Education but not the D.E.O. as per G.O.Ms.No. 647, Education, dated 18-06-1977. I have gone through the orders referred supra carefully and I have no hesitation to reject the contention of the 2nd respondent for more than one reason.