DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION Vs. N SUBRAHMANYAM REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the writ applications are as follows : Pursuant to or in furtherance of the recommendations of a One-Man Committee known as 'V.R. Reddy Committee', Vocational Training Courses were introduced in the State from the year 1979-80 onwards. The Central Government offered 75% of total expenses of salaries. According to the State, the Scheme is purely temporary and all the posts sanctioned for Vocational Courses were under 'Plan' and every year according to the need they were directed to be continued. It is not in dispute that during the year 1994-95, certain posts were converted into 'Non-plan' posts by reason of G.O.Rt.No.214 dated 11-10-1985 and the number of posts sanctioned earlier had been reduced. The writ petitioners herein were appointed in the years 1988 and 1989. On or about 20th April 1989, G.O.Ms.No.146 was issued in terms whereof Ad hoc Rules were framed governing the posts of Vocational Training Courses, including the post of Lab Attenders, to which post the petitioners were appointed. The said Rules, inter alia, provide that the Principals will be the appointing authority for the posts of Lab Attenders. Thereafter, a policy decision was adopted by the State by issuing G.O, Ms.No.193 General Administration (Services A) Department, dated 14-3-1990 whereby and whereunder temporary daily wage appointments against civil posts in Government service were sought to be regularized on a regular scale of pay. Condition Nos.4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which are relevant for the purpose of these cases read thus:

(3.) Applications having been filed before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal questioning the said orders, interim order staying the operation thereof had been passed on 4-5-1993. The said Original Applications were allowed by Judgment dated 10-6-1993 with liberty to the respondents to take action upon compliance of the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the said judgment passed by the learned Tribunal, show-cause notices were issued on 20-5-1994 whereafter, the petitioners filed explanation thereto in June 1994. Yet again, another show-cause notice was issued stating that the Principal was not the competent authority, on 5-7-1994. The petitioners in their explanation, inter alia, stated: