Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Smt B Parvathi Devi, on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No.370 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
Represented by its Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Secretariat,
Saifabad, Hyderabad, presently situated at
Secretariat Buildings, Department of
School Education, Velgapudi, Guntur, and others.
.. Appellants.
Versus
Smt. B. Parvathi Devi,
W/o B. Jayaprakash, Aged about 51 years,
Hindi Pandi, Gr.II, Panyam Cements High School,
Cement Nagar, (P/O.) - 518 206,
Kurnool District, and another.
..Respondents.
Counsel for the appellants : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer,
GP for School Education
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, Sr. Counsel
for Mr. J. Chandraiah
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 22.07.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for School
Education appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K.G. Krishna
Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/writ
petitioner.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 29.02.2020 passed by
the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24135 of 2012, directing the appellant
Nos.1 to 3 (respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein) to approve the appointment of
respondent No.1/writ petitioner with effect from 24.08.2007 and to pass
appropriate orders within a period of three weeks.
3. Respondent No.1/writ petitioner was appointed as Hindi Pandit
Grade-II in Panyam Cement High School on 04.10.2004. When her
appointment was not approved by the competent authority, she, along
with one Musharath Jehan, who was similarly situated, had approached
this Court by filing W.P.No.9375 of 2005. During the pendency of the said
writ petition, the appointment of Musharath Jehan (petitioner No.1
therein) was approved by a proceeding dated 24.08.2007. On due
consideration, the said writ petition was allowed by a learned single
Judge, by an order dated 29.12.2010, directing the Regional Joint Director
of School Education, Kadapa, to pass fresh orders according the same
treatment to respondent No.1/writ petitioner (petitioner No.2 therein), as
was given to Musharath Jehan (petitioner No.1 therein).
4. The aforesaid order dated 29.12.2010 was assailed in W.A.No.1076
of 2011 and, by a judgment and order dated 26.12.2011, a Division Bench
of this Court declined to interfere with the order under appeal and,
accordingly, the appeal was dismissed upholding the order of the learned
single Judge.
5. Subsequent thereto, proceedings were issued appointing
respondent No.1/writ petitioner with effect from 14.06.2012.
6. Challenging the said action of the authorities in approving her
appointment with effect from 14.06.2012 instead of from 04.10.2004,
respondent No.1/writ petitioner filed the writ petition, out of which the
present appeal arises, for a direction to the appellants/respondents to
treat the date of her appointment as 04.10.2004 and for a declaration that
she is entitled to all consequential benefits with effect from 04.10.2004.
7. On a query of the Court, Mr. Raghuveer submits that the
appointment of Musharath Jehan was approved with effect from
24.08.2007.
8. Taking note of the order dated 29.12.2010 passed in W.P.No.9375
of 2005, as affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A.No.1076 of 2011, the
learned single Judge held that as there was a direction to give the same
treatment to respondent No.1/writ petitioner, as was given to Musharath
Jehan (petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.9375 of 2005), she would be entitled for
approval of her appointment with effect from 24.08.2007, from which
date Musharath Jehan's appointment was approved.
9. The direction issued by the learned single Judge to approve the
appointment of respondent No.1/writ petitioner with effect from
24.08.2007 being in terms of the order dated 29.12.2010 passed in
W.P.No.9375 of 2005, which had attained finality, we see no good ground
to interfere with the order under appeal.
10. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only). Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
