DIRECTOR OF INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION Vs. T SATYAM NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and also Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, Counsel representing Respondents I to 3 in the present Writ Petition, applicants in O.A. No.4001/96.

(2.) Respondents 1 to 3 herein/applicants in O.A. No.4001/96 filed the said O.A. on the file of A.P. Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter in short referred to as "Tribunal" for the purpose of convenience, to call for records relating to proceedings Memo N0.1609/HE.2/93-5 dated 17-6-1996 of the 1st respondent in the O.A. and to quash the same and direct the Respondents in the O.A. to revise the pay scales of the applicants therein in accordance with 1986 and 1993 Revised Pay Scales and also to direct the Respondents to continue the applicants as Attenders and pay Rs.1375-2525. The matter was disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the impugned Memo dated 17-6-1996 cannot be sustained and the applicants' pay have to be fixed as per regularization done earlier as Attenders and notional benefits be given up to the date of filing the O.A. and monetary benefits thereafter and the said exercise to be completed within three months from 15-4-2003, the date of the order in the said O.A. The said order of the Tribunal was assailed by the present writ petitioner, Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

(3.) Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the relevant G.Os. and also the proceedings and had submitted that despite the specific directions that these appointments should not be made, the Principal made these irregular appointments and, the Principal is not competent to appoint contrary to the directions issued by the writ petitioner and hence the Respondents I to 3 continue to be contingent employees only and are not entitled to the benefits which had been given by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel also stressed on the proceedings where it was stated that no further appointments to be made, which had been duly communicated not only to the subject Institution but to the other Institutions as well. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that inasmuch as these appointments are irregular appointments, the Respondents 1 to 3 may have to be continued as contingent staff only and hence they are not entitled to the benefits which had been awarded by the Tribunal in this regard. The learned Counsel also placed relevant records before this Court.