K. PRABHURAM REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is filed against the order dated 30.09.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review W.P.M.P.No.16732 of 2003 in W.P.No.29125 of 1998.

(2.) THE case has a bit of complexity of facts. The 5th respondent is a Girls High School at Vikarabad, which is admitted to grant -in -aid. The post of Telugu Pandit Grade II, which is also admitted to grant -in -aid, fell vacant. The competent authority had accorded permission on 02.05.1990 to the institution to fill the vacancy. Based on that, not only a letter was addressed to the local Employment Exchange to sponsor eligible candidates, but also notification was issued inviting applications from eligible candidates. The appellant submitted an application in response to the notification. The Selection Committee, constituted in accordance with the relevant Rules, selected him and he was appointed through order, dated 27.06.1990. He joined the duty and started working.

(3.) THE appellant and two other Teachers, who were similarly placed, filed W.P.No.6662 of 1991, with a prayer to direct the respondents to regularize their services. The writ petition was disposed of on 22.09.1994 directing the respondents to consider the cases of the appellant and two other candidates, in accordance with law. In compliance with the same, the 1st respondent issued G.O.Rt.No.1226, dated 14.08.1997, refusing to accord approval for the appointment of the appellant on the ground that his case was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Another observation was made to the effect that the Rule of Reservation was not followed. Challenging the same, the appellant filed W.P.No.29125 of 1998. The writ petition was allowed on 30.06.1999, by taking note of the fact that the sponsoring through Employment Exchange is not the only source for an employer and the judgment of the Supreme Court in Excise Superintendent vs. K.B.N. Visweswara Rao was taken note of. The judgment rendered in the writ petition was implemented and the appellant was extended all the benefits.