NARENDER GOUD R Vs. A P ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Construction of G.O. Ms.No. 32 Education (Rules) Department, dated 2-2-1988 and Government Memo No. 1636/ KK.1/68-2, Education Department, dated 25-6-1968 falls for consideration in this Writ Petition which is directed against the judgment dated 2-12-1999 passed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.NO. 4672 of 1995.

(2.) Petitioners herein are teachers working in various schools of the State whereas the respondent Nos. 7 to 13 are the teachers of various schools run by Mandal Parishad or Social Welfare Department and the original official respondents are working in Tribal Welfare Ashram schools in Adilabad District. The six applicants (respondents herein) who filed the Original Application No, 1320 of 1994 had at all material times and still are working in Tribal Welfare Ashram schools in Adilabad district. Out of them, original applicant Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 6 were working as Headmasters while applicant Nos. 2 and 4 were working as School Assistants. By reason of a Government Order No. 302 Education ( I.E.I) Department, dated 30-12-1993 methodology with regard to the filling up of the vacancies of Junior Lecturers was specified. Rule 2 thereof refers to the constitution of service. In this case, however, this Court is concerned with the recruitment to Category 6 Junior Lecturers wherefor Rule 3 which deals with the method of appointment is relevant and reads thus:

(3.) The learned Tribunal upon considerations of the materials placed on record inter alia came to the conclusion that the original applicants - respondents are also entitled to be considered for appointment by way of transfer to the post of Junior Lecturers under the said Rules. Sri Sundaram, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein inter alia submitted that as the conditions of service of the teachers who are working in the schools belonging to the State Government are governed by the A.P. School Education Service Rules and in terms thereof 'service' has been constituted which would amount to constitution of cadre; the question of filling up of the higher posts by the teachers belonging to another service and consequently another cadre does not arise. The learned Counsel Sri Sundaram would urge that G.O.Ms. No. 32 Education Department dated 2-2-1988 whereby and whereunder rules known as A.P. Educational Institutions (Inspection and Visits) Rules, 1988 were made could not have been taken recourse to by the learned Tribunal below in view of the fact that for the purpose of construction of one rule recourse to the provision of another rule is not permissible. In any event, contends the learned Counsel, Government institution and Non- Government institution have been defined separately, the applicants before the Tribunal would not come within the purview thereof. According to the learned Counsel, by reason of the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal has in fact issued a Writ of Mandamus directing the State to make a rule which is impermissible in law. Reliance in this connection has been placed on State of A.P. vs. V. Sadanandam and Asif Hameed vs. State of J & K.