V BHAIRAVA SWAMI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, six in number, who are working as secondary grade teachers filed this Writ Petition questioning the Validity of the orders passed by the first respondent in G.O.RtNo. 1129 Education (PS) Department, dated 4-10-1996 whereunder the first respondent declared that their appointments are not in accordance with law, and also sought for a consequential direction to declare that their selections are proper and valid as per G.O.Ms.No.524 dated 20-12-1988. While Petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 are working in respondent No.4 - School, the Petitioner No.6 is working in Respondent No.5 - School. They filed a single writ petition on the ground that their cases were disposed of by the Respondent No. 1 by passing the impugned order. On an objection taken by this court, the Petitioner No.6 paid separate Court fee and the same is taken on file under USR No.163617/97.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of this Wnt Petition are that the correspondent of the Respondent No.4 School which is functioning as Aided Elementary School was upgraded into Upper Primary School by the Respondent No.3 in his proceedings RC.No.3102/B2/91, dated 10-9-1991. Thereafter, keeping in view the work load due to opening of new classes up to VI Class the 4th respondent seemed to have sought for permission for creation of the following unaided posts: 1. One post of B.Ed. Assistant 2. TwopostsofSecondaryGradeTeachers 3. One post of Gr.HTelugu Pandit 4. One post of Gr.U Hindi PanditSimultaneously, he seemed to have sought permission to fill up two aided posts which have fallen vacant due to retirement of the incumbents, and unaided posts for whose creation permission was sought for. Anticipating favourable orders from the third respondent, he seemed to have addressed a letter to the Employment Exchange to sponsor the candidates for filling up both aided and unaided vacancies.

(3.) On 31-07-1991, the District Employment Officer directed the 4th Respondent to send the particulars in the prescribed proforma and on the same day the 4th Respondent sent two proposals, one for the posts that were admitted to grant-in-aid, and the other for the posts to be created as unaided posts- Having received the said letter, the Employment Officer wrote a letter to the 4th respondent stating that in Column No. 9, he mentioned that one post is reserved for B.Cs. and he did not mention about reservations for the 2nd post. If he sends particulars for the 2nd post, his request will be considered. On the same day the 4th respondent sent another proforma stating that the two aided posts are reserved for B.C. 'B' group. The respondent No.4 seemed to have sent a reminder to sponsor the candidates on 07-09-1991 and as he did not hear anything from the District Employment Officer, he seemed to have issued paper notification on 18-09-1991 calling for applications from the eligible candidates. Simultaneously, he seemed to have sent another reminder to the Employment Exchange on 05-10-1991. In the meantime, the 3rd Respondent gave permission to the 4th respondent for creation of un-aided posts on 03-10-1991 and constituted the selection Committee as per the statutory rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20-12-1998 fixing the date of interview as 12-10-1991. But, the Employment Exchange did not send any reply to the 4th respondent. The interview Committee met on 12-10-1991 and selected 6 candidates 2 for aided and 4 for un-aided posts. Subsequently, the 3rd Respondent not only approved their appointments but also released grant-in-aid. Thereafter, in March, 1992, there is a change in the incumbent in the 3rd Respondent and the successor felt that theprevious incumbent committed a mistake in approving these appointments. On a clarification sought for by him, the 2nd Respondent in his proceedings in L.Dis-No.9318/D1.2/92.1, dated 14-10-1992 directed the District Educational Officer to issue instructions to the Management of the school to remove the teachers concerned from service after issuing notices to them as their appointments were made in violation of the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20-12-1988. ft seems that the 2nd Respondent directed the Management concerned to pay the salaries to the incumbents for the period they worked in their respective schools as they themselves were responsible for the irregular appointments. On the basis of the above instructions, the third respondent directed the management to terminate the services of these petitioners in his Proceedings No.3710/C2/92 dated21-10-1992. Questioningthe said orders, the petitioners filed W.P.No. 14393 of 1992 on the file of this court and the same was dismissed on 3-11-1992 at the admission stage on the ground of alternative remedy and directed the petitioners to approach the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioners seemed to have filed W.A.No.1330/92 and a Division Bench of this court while dismissing the appeal directed the petitioners to file an appeal before the Government and seek stay of termination of their services. This court directed maintenance of status quo till they obtain appropriate orders with regard to continuance of their services. Accordingly, the petitioners filed statutory appeal under Section 89 of the A.P. Education Act on 25-11-1992 before the first respondent and the first respondent by his orders dated 30-12-1992 directed maintenance of status quo. Though not necessary for adjudication of the dispute in this Writ Petition, to give a complete picture of the case, I would like to refer the events that have taken place thereafter also. After the order of the Government, dated 30-12-1992 maintaining status quo, the petitioners filed W.P.No.7401/96 seeking a direction to the respondents for release of grant-in-aid. This court was pleased to pass interim orders directing the payment of salary from April, 1996 onwards. When that order was not gjven effect, they filed Contempt Case No.834/96. The first respondent having received notice in the Contempt Case, passed the impugned orders on 4-10-1996 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. Subsequently, the Contempt Case came up for orders and this Court directed the Government to release the grant-in-aid from April, 1996. to 4-10-1996, the date on which the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.