SHIVA PRASADA RAO Vs. SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare as illegal and arbitrary the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 04.04.2008, through which approval of the absorption of the petitioner into Aided Secondary Grade Teacher post is rejected. The facts in brief are that the petitioner being a Science Graduate with B.Ed. (Maths) was appointed B.Ed. Assistant in the year 1995 in the 3rd respondent B.V.R. Aided High School, Koppolu, Prakasam District. The said appointment was approved in the same year. Both B.V.R. Aided High School and B.S. Aided High School, Koppolu, are under the same management, having 15 Secondary Grade Teacher posts approved by the competent authority. Out of the said 15 posts, 12 posts have been admitted into grant in aid. Insofar as B.V.R. Aided High School is concerned, there are in total eight teachers working, out of whom five have been admitted into grant-in-aid. On 29.09.2004 the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent to consider his case for absorption into Aided Secondary Grade Teacher post, which was to fall vacant on the superannuation of a the incumbent teacher, who had to retire on 30.09.2004. The petitioner, while making his. representation, has underlined the fact to the management that there are no other Unaided Secondary Grade Teachers working in the 3rd respondent school.

(2.) The 3rd respondent management, considering the request of the petitioner, as he is suitable with the requisite qualification, absorbed the petitioner as a Secondary Grade Teacher through proceedings dated 01.10.2004. Since it is a statutory mandate, on such absorption, the 3rd respondent submitted a proposal to the 2nd respondent for approval. The Mandal Education Officer, Ongole Rural Mandal, has in turn submitted a proposal to the District Education Officer for the approval of the absorption of the petitioner, through his proceedings dated 06.10.2004.

(3.) Though as per the Rules the approval of the absorption is formal in nature, albeit subject to the conditions laid in the applicable rules, the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders either approving or rejecting the proposal, which in fact, should have taken place in a time bound manner. Thus, questioning the said-inaction of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 15927 of 2005, which was allowed by this Court on 04.12.2007, with the following directions to the respondent authorities: