Telangana High Court
Meera vs The State Of Telangana on 13 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NO. 24670 of 2020
ORDER:
In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.3 in issuing the proceedings in Rc.No.0781/A1/2020 dated 12.10.2020 rejecting the case of the petitioner for absorption into the post of Gr-II Hindi Pandit (Aided) Post, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequently to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner in the post of Gr-II Hindi Pandit (Aided) in the Arya Kanya Vidyalaya High School with effect from 01.07.2000 as per the proposals submitted by the School and to release all the consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits, etc., and to pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged as a SGBT Teacher by the respondent No.5 school in the year 1987. It is submitted that the petitioner joined the school in the year 1987 and she has worked continuously without any breakage of service and 2 TMD,J W.P.No. 24670 of 2020 retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019. It is submitted that in the year 2000, one Smt.Prema Varma, who was working in the aided post of Grade- II Hindi Pandit, was promoted into the aided post of Grade-I Hindi Pandit on 01.12.2000 and in the consequential vacancy of Grade-II Hindi Pandit aided post, the petitioner was absorbed and she has worked against the said post since then. It is submitted that after promotion of Smt.Prema Varma, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents requesting them to absorb her into existing vacancy of Grade-II Hindi Pandit with effect from 01.12.2000 and the School Management also sent a proposal to the respondent No.2 vide Ref.No.38/99, dated 20.02.1999 requesting his approval for the post of Grant- in-Aid as per rules and the names of persons appointed along with the petitioner, i.e., (1) Smt.Amitha Reddy, (2) Smt.Geetha Rani and (3) Smt.Y.Padma were recommended stating that all the appointments were made by the governing council of Arya Kanya vidyalaya Educational Society from time to time and sought approval for admitting their posts for Granit-in-Aid. It is submitted that the case of the other persons i.e., Smt.Amitha Reddy and Smt.Y.Padma were considered into the aided post vide G.O.Ms.No.92, Education (SE/PS-I) Department, dated 3 TMD,J W.P.No. 24670 of 2020 03.12.1999 as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.15921/1989, dated 31.12.1996 and batch and the case of Smt.Geetha Rani was also considered by the respondent No.1 in aided post vide G.O.Ms.No.136, School Education (PS.I) Department, dated 13.11.2003. It is submitted that the petitioner as well as Smt.Geetha Rani were appointed on the same day as SGBT teachers.
3. It is submitted that when the name of the petitioner was not considered for absorption into the aided post, the petitioner filed W.P.No.38810 of 2014 and during the course of hearing of the said writ petition, the respondents had taken an objection that respondent No.5 school has not sent any proposals for absorption of the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court, vide orders dated 18.04.2019, disposed of the writ petition directing the respondent No.5 to submit a fresh proposal for absorption of the petitioner into aided vacancy and also directed the respondent No.3 to consider the same. However, the respondent No.5 submitted the proposal, but the official respondents No.1 to 3 did not consider the same and therefore, the petitioner filed Contempt Case i.e., C.C.No.590 of 2020 wherein the respondents have taken a stand that there 4 TMD,J W.P.No. 24670 of 2020 was a ban issued by the Government vide Memo dated 20.10.2004 for making any appointments even in aided posts. Observing the same, the Contempt Case was closed. It is submitted that the issue of appointments during the ban period has been taken upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that ban is applicable only prospectively and that the Government can consider the proposals for absorption which have been sent prior to the date when the ban was imposed vide Memo dated 20.10.2004. It is submitted that the respondents have, however, rejected the proposal of the respondent No.5, solely on the ground that there is a ban on recruitment even in the aided posts and also that the respondent No.5 management has not obtained the approval of the respondents prior to filling up of the post of Grade-II Hindi Pandit aided post with the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the proposals of respondent No.5 wherein the name of the petitioner has been referred to and approval for appointment and also absorption has been sought. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the G.Os., issued in favour of similarly placed persons whose irregular 5 TMD,J W.P.No. 24670 of 2020 appointments have been regularized and they have been absorbed into aided posts. He therefore, submits that the rejection of the case of the petitioner is not only discriminatory but is also illegal.
5. Learned Government Pleader relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the respondent management ought to have taken approval of the Government prior to taking the petitioner as a Grade-II Hindi Pandit in aided post and since such approval has not been received, her services cannot be absorbed. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the ban imposed by the Government vide Memo dated 20.10.2004.
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that the petitioner has been working with the respondent No.5 management from the year 1987. On arising of the vacancy in the post of Grade-II Hindi Pandit, the management seems to have sent the proposals for absorption of the petitioner into the aided post. However, the respondents No.1 to 3 have not taken any action, but in the writ petition filed by the petitioner they have taken a stand that no such proposals have been received by them. However, 6 TMD,J W.P.No. 24670 of 2020 consequent to the directions of this Court, the respondent No.5 has again sent proposals referring to the engagement of the petitioner as Grade-II Hindi Pandit in the aided post and also that she has also retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. However, the respondents have rejected the case without considering that similarly placed persons i.e., Smt.Amitha Reddy, (2) smt.Geetha Rani and (3) Smt.Y.Padma, their irregular appointments were post facto approved and they were permitted to be absorbed into aided posts. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents in rejecting the case of the petitioner solely on the ground of irregular appointment even though she has put in service in the aided post from 2000 to 2019 i.e., for a period of nineteen years and no objections were raised by them on any of the earlier occasions, while allowing the grant-in-aid to the respondent No.5 institutions, the action of the respondents is apparently discriminatory.
7. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 12.10.2020 is set aside and the respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider the case i.e., the proposals of respondent No.5 for approval of the petitioner's appointment (allegedly irregular) and 7 TMD,J W.P.No. 24670 of 2020 thereafter, her absorption into the aided post and grant her all consequential benefits. The entire exercise shall be completed within period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.
____________________________ JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI Date: 13.08.2024 bak