DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER ONGOLE Vs. B V RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent herein was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher by an order, dated 17-9-1992, on temporary basis by St. Paul's Educational Development Committee - second respondent. When a regular vacancy arose, the second respondent addressed a letter to the Employment Exchange requesting to sponsor eligible candidates. After waiting for five months, as there was no response from the Employment Exchange, the management advertised in news papers (including Eenadu, a Telugu Daily) inviting applications and a Selection Committee, after considering the relative merits of the applicants, on 17-2-1993 recommended the appointment of the first respondent herein and accordingly sent a letter of request to the District Educational Officer on 19-2-1993 requesting him to accord approval. The District Educational Officer, the appellant herein, by his order, dated 17-3-1994, declined to accord approval on the ground that the candidate appointed was not sponsored by the Employment Exchange. Assailing the action of the District Educational Officer, Writ Petition No. 5820 of 1994 was filed by the first respondent herein and the same was allowed by a learned single Judge. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal was brought.

(2.) It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the constitution of the very Selection Committee was vitiated since it was not in accordance with the prescribed procedure. He also says that the second respondent-institution not being a minority institution, it was not open to the management to appoint teachers without complying with the prescribed procedure.

(3.) What needs to be noticed prominently in this case is when the management of the school addressed a letter to the District Educational Officer requesting for approval to the appointment of the first respondent as teacher on 17-2-1993, the order declining approval was passed by the District Educational Officer on 17-3-1994, after more than a year. G.O.Ms.No.524, Education, dated 20-12-1988, mandates by Paragraph 15 (4), that the competent authority shall not take more than three months from the date of the proposals for the approval of appointments, failing which the appointment shall be treated as ratified except in cases where the candidates were found otherwise ineligible. This is not a case where the candidate was found otherwise ineligible. Therefore, the failure on the part of the competent authority to communicate his decision within the specified period of three months, had given raise to an enforceable right to the first respondent to claim that his appoint- ment has been ratified.