K B R P Jyotsna vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 5787 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K B R P Jyotsna vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2023

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

                     WRIT PETITION No.15245 OF 2023

ORDER:

-

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, claiming the following relief:

"declaring the highhanded action on the part of the respondents 5 to 110 in attempting to discontinue or disrupt the services of the petitioners i e PGTs teaching Telugu and English contrary to the object in establishing the Kasturiba Gandhi Balika Vidyala during the intervening night of 11thand 12th June 2023 on the basis of oral instructions of the said respondents as illegal arbitrary unceremonious unfair contrary to the procedure established under law violation of principles of natural Justice Opposing the terms and conditions enumerated in the Contract of Employment entered in between Petitioners and their respective Schools Project Officers/respondents violation of Articles 14 191g 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 5 to 110 to absorb the petitioners services into the regular basis at the place of Schools where they all are engaged and working for all these years by providing all the service benefits thereof coupled with payment of salaries regularly to all the petitioners"

2. The facts of the case in brief are that:

3. The Kasturiba Gandhi Balika Vidyalas (KGBV) were initially

established as part of a government scheme in August 2004. The object of

these Vidyalayas was to create residential schools at the upper primary

level, primarily for catering educational needs to girls from marginalized

communities, including SC, ST, OBC, and Minorities, across various

regions. Subsequently, the scope of KGBV was extended to the

intermediate level. Funding for KGBVs was provided jointly by both the

State and Central Governments. Later, a separate initiative called

NV,J

Sarvasiksha Abhyan (SSA) was launched, beginning on 01.04.2007. This

led to the merger of KGBVs into the SSA program, making KGBV a

component of SSA.

4. In a significant development, the State Government issued

G.O.Ms.No.37 School Education (Prog.II) Department dated 04.06.2019,

upgrading 140 KGBVs from the upper primary level to junior colleges,

starting with the intermediate course. With the expansion of classes upto

the intermediate level, additional teaching staff was required.

Consequently, the authorities initiated the recruitment process of Part-

Time Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) for these newly elevated junior

colleges for the academic year 2019 to 2020. The petitioners in this case

were selected as PGTs, having possessed the qualifications such as M.A. in

Telugu, B.Ed, M.A. in English, B.Ed, and Telugu Pandit Training in both

English and Telugu languages, in accordance with the notification issued

by the State Project Director during the period 2018-2019. These

petitioners were entrusted with the responsibility of teaching language

subjects to intermediate students within the stipulated daily hours. The

guidelines for the selection of Part-Time PGTs, including the mode of

selection and required qualifications, were clearly outlined in the

recruitment process. As of 2018-2019 to 2020-2023, a total of 352 KGBV

junior colleges were established, and 1400 Part-Time PGTs were engaged,

with a honorarium of Rs.12,000/- per month.

NV,J

5. Each year, the petitioners' services were renewed through written

Employment contracts that specified various conditions and obligations,

including provisions for rescission and termination of their services.

Appointment orders were issued to all of them, outlining the terms and

conditions of their service. On 01.05.2023, the petitioners‟ services were

renewed for another one year period, following the pattern of previous

employment agreements. As a result, the petitioners had a reasonable

expectation that their services would continue without disruption for the

usual one-year period.

6. However, on 27.05.2023, after the renewal of the petitioners'

services, the respondents issued a notification for the recruitment of female

candidates to fill-up 1358 vacant teaching positions, including PGTs.

Among the vacancies, 846 were designated for PGTs. Notably, no new

vacancies were announced for PGTs in Telugu language, giving the

impression that the existing PGTs would continue in their roles, especially

since the services of the petitioners had already been renewed. Some of the

petitioners also applied for other positions such as Principals and CRTs to

enhance their career prospects and earnings. The petitioners had

underwent the selection process successfully and were indeed retained as

PGTs for Telugu and English languages.

NV,J

7. Surprisingly, on the night of 11.06.2023/12.06.2023, the

respondents issued instructions discontinuing the services of the

petitioners. The abrupt termination of their services without adhering to

the terms and conditions of the agreement is challenged in the present writ

petition.

8. Respondent No.3 - Commissioner of Intermediate Education filed

counter affidavit stating that the Notification was issued by Respondent

No.4 - Director of School Education and Respondent No.5 - State Project

Director, Sarva Sikshya Abhyan. He submits that, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan is

under the control of School Education for the purpose of recruiting PGTs in

the year 2018 & 2019, as such he has no role and obligations in this

matter. He further submits that, the petitioners were selected by

Respondent Nos.4 & 5 and he has no role and he is no way concerned with

the prayer made by the petitioners herein and requested to dismiss the writ

petition against him.

9. Respondent No.5 - State Project Director, Samagra Shiksha,

Patamata, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, filed counter affidavit, denying

material allegations, inter alia, contending in Paragraph No.12 that, the

petitioners were engaged as Guest Faculty only for the academic year 2022-

2023 with a condition that till the said vacancies are filled-up with full time

teachers as per norms or till the end of the academic year 2022-23

whichever is earlier. Accordingly, vide proceedings dated 29.03.2023, the

NV,J

services of the Guest Faculty were withdrawn at the end of the academic

year 2022-2023 i.e. on 29.03.2023.. When there is no provision for

remuneration beyond the approved four posts by the Government of India,

the post of PGT Telugu was not notified in the Notification. The petitioners

are not allowed to misinterpret the notification by projecting before the

Hon‟ble High Court that as the said posts were not notified, they have a

legitimate right to be continued is nothing but illusionary and against the

policy decision of the Government. Hence, the claim of the petitioners to

consider their candidature to continue them in the same places and by

absorbing them does not arise.

10. It is also submitted in the counter affidavit that, all the petitioners

are part time and guest faculty who are engaged purely on

temporary/hourly basis for the period that particularly academic year only.

All the faculties including PGTs, CRTs, Guest PGTs and Guest CRTs were

engaged purely on temporary basis for that particular academic year only.

The petitioners having participated in the recruitment process, they cannot

knock the doors of the Hon‟ble Court alleging that the notification issued

for recruitment is bias and untenable.

11. Finally, it is submitted in the counter affidavit that, in pursuance of

the Notification dated 27.05.2023, the recruitment process has been

completed and the selected candidates have joined in their respective

NV,J

selected places. In view of the above, this petitioner warrants no

interference and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

12. Respondent No.5 also filed additional counter affidavit admitting that

he has issued proceedings dated 29.04.2022 & 30.04.2022, withdrawing

services of all the outsourced/contract employees. Later, on 01.02.2023, he

had issued directions to re-engage the services of outsourced/contract

employees. He submitted that all the approved project posts for the KGBV

scheme are purely on contract and outsourcing basis and some of the

agreements produced by the petitioners are not valid as they were not

signed by the Principal, who is the competent authority to sign on the

contractual agreements.

13. During hearing, Sri U.D.J. Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioners would contend that, the termination of the petitioners' services

was not in accordance with Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the agreement.

Condition No. 6 allows either party to rescind the contract by providing a

30-day written notice. However, in this case, no notice was issued to the

petitioners, and their services were terminated abruptly and that if the

respondents intend to terminate the services of the petitioners', they must

be put on 30-day notice. Similarly, Clause 7 deals with the termination of

candidature and also requires a 30-day prior notice for termination. In the

present case, the respondents violated both Clauses 6 and 7 of the

agreement, as well as the principles of natural justice and fairness, by

NV,J

terminating the petitioners' services without any prior notice or due

process. Learned counsel for the petitioners also highlights that in a

subsequent notification issued on 27.05.2023 for recruiting teaching

faculty, the respondents did not include positions for Telugu subject

faculty. This omission denied the petitioners the opportunity to be

considered for recruitment to the position of Post Graduate Teachers in

Telugu subject.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as a matter of fact,

the appellants were duly qualified and were selected in accordance with

due selection process and were required to undergo the selection process in

every Academic Year. He submits that the modus operandi of the

Colleges/Institutions was to engage the services of the appellants at the

beginning of the Academic Session and to discontinue them at the end of

the Academic Session; and again to issue fresh advertisements for the next

Academic Session. In response to the same, the candidates were again

required to follow the selection process to get appointed. It is therefore

submitted that though there was sufficient workload for regular posts, the

appellants were deprived of regular employment. It is submitted that, in

any case, the appellants had not sought for regularization. The relief

claimed was only for continuation of their services till duly selected

candidates were appointed on regular basis.

NV,J

15. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the

judgments of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of

Punjab1, Rattan Lal vs. State of Haryana2, Manish Gupta vs. President,

Jan Bhagidari Samiti3, High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Y.N. Rao vs.

State of Andhra Pradesh4 and High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Murad

Ali Sajan vs. UT of J & K5. On the strength of the principle laid down in

the above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioners requested to grant

the relief as prayed for.

16. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for School Education would

contend that, the appointments of the petitioners were neither ad hoc nor

temporary, but their services were as guest lecturers on contractual basis

for 12 months. The requirement of the guest lecturers was from year to

year on the basis of the number of students available for particular

course(s). Further, the nature of the engagement of petitioners is purely

contractual and once their contract has come to an end, they have no locus

standi to challenge the action of the respondents.

17. He further asserts that the Project Approval Board, in its meeting on

March 22, 2023, resolved to recruit full-time teaching faculty, including

Full-Time Teachers/Lecturers, for each center. In accordance with the

1 (2007) 13 SCC 292 2 (1985) 4 SCC 43

3 Civil Appeal Nos.3084-3088 of 2022 dated 21.04.2022 4 2022 SCC Online AP 2491

NV,J

Board's resolution, the District Level Committees were granted the

authority to carry out the recruitment as per the terms specified in the

Board's resolution. He submits that the petitioners' services were

discontinued for the academic year 2022-2023 through a notice issued by

Respondent No. 5 on 29.03.2023. He argues that the nature of the

petitioners' employment is that of temporary part-time teachers, and their

contractual agreements were limited to one year. Consequently, their

services were withdrawn by issuing proceedings on 29.03.2023, with a one-

month notice period, and their employment was officially concluded on

28.04.2023. As a result, he contends that the assertion made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners, suggesting a violation of Clauses 6 and

7 of the Agreements, cannot be substantiated in light of the proceedings

dated 29.03.2023.

18. The Government Pleader argues that the non-notification of Telugu

language teaching posts by Respondent No.6, as it can be fulfilled from

both the subject faculty and contract residential teachers, does not violate

any rules or principles of natural justice and reasonableness. It is pointed

out that some of the petitioners applied for and participated in the new

selection process following the notification dated 27.05.2023, with a few of

them successfully securing positions. Therefore, having engaged in this

new selection process, the petitioners cannot now challenge the actions of

the respondents. Additionally, the Government Pleader contends that the

NV,J

petitioners received an honorarium in May 2023, and the Principals of the

respective institutions entered into fresh one-year agreements with them,

even though they lacked the authority to do so. Consequently, the

petitioners cannot rely on these agreements.

19. In support of his contentions, learned Government Pleader placed

reliance on the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Union of India

vs. S. Vinodh Kumar6 and Ramesh Chandra Shah vs. Anil Joshi7 and

requested to dismiss the writ petition.

20. Heard Sri U.D.J. Bhima Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners,

learned Government Pleader for School Education and perused the

material available on record.

21. One of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the respondents did not issue any notice as required

under Clause Nos.6 & 7 of the Terms and Conditions of the Agreements

between the petitioners and respondents. For better appreciation of the

case, Clause Nos.6 & 7 of the Agreements are extracted hereunder:

"6. Rescission

Either party may rescind this contract at any time by giving the other party at least 30 days notice in writing of its intention to do so. However, Samagra Shiksha will suspend or dismiss the services of the Signatory immediately if involved in disciplinary/criminal

6 (2007) 8 SCC 100

7 (2013) 11 SCC 309

NV,J

cases and prima facie findings establish the irregularities. The State Project Director, Andhra Pradesh Samagra Shiksha, is empowered to take necessary appropriate action without giving any notice.

22. On reading of Clause No.6, the respondents only possessed their

right to suspend or dismiss the services of the petitioners, if they are

involved in disciplinary or criminal cases and only when prima facie

irregularities are found or established against the petitioners. Only in this

regard, they are empowered to take appropriate action without issuing any

notice. But, in the present case, the petitioners were neither suspended nor

dismissed from their services by the respondents, they simply ignored the

services abruptly. Moreover, it is not the case that the petitioners were

involved in any offences or they have committed any irregularities. In the

absence of any commission of offences or irregularities/mistakes by the

petitioners, terminating the petitioners without any notice is a grave

illegality committed by the respondents, as such the act of the respondents

in violation of principles of natural justice, hence such action is illegal and

arbitrary.

23. One of the contentions urged by the learned Government Pleader for

School Education is that the petitioners have contravened Clause No.7 of

the Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. Clause No.7 reads as follows:

7. Termination

In case of improper conduct and/or unsatisfactory performance by the Signatory, having regard in particular to the Terms and Reference mentioned above. Samagra Shiksha shall terminate this

NV,J

Contract without any notice and no compensation shall be payable in such case."

24. On bare reading of the above provision, apparently no improper

conduct or unsatisfactory performance by the petitioners is exhibited by

the petitioners. If the petitioners possessed any improper conduct or if the

competent/concerned authority felt that the performance of the petitioners

was not upto the mark or not satisfying, they ought to have issued Memo(s)

bringing it to their notice, calling for explanation for such misdeeds or

misconduct. But, no such misconduct or unsatisfactory performance was

exhibited by the petitioners prima facie. In addition, the „Service

Certificates‟ produced by some of the petitioners, which were issued by the

Principal, show that, the dedicated professional attitude during working

years with nature and character as well. On this ground also, the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is upheld, while

rejecting the contention canvassed by the learned Government Pleader for

School Education.

25. When the respondents initially entered service agreements with the

petitioners for the academic year 2023-2024, extending these agreements

for one additional year, they also signed new agreements on 01.05.2023,

authorized by the concerned Principal of the College/Institution, who had

previously entered into agreements with the respondents. However, given

that the respondents had already committed to service agreements for the

NV,J

academic year 2023-2024, their abrupt and unceremonious withdrawal of

the petitioners' services, citing either the new recruitment outlined in the

Notification dated 27.05.2023 or the Board Resolution that determined a

new staffing pattern, which allowed only the subject teachers of the faculty

to continue and excluded Telugu Language teachers, appears to be an act

of discrimination against the petitioners, which is in violation of Articles 14

and 21 of the Constitution of India.

26. The learned Government Pleader for School Education has contended

that the proceedings issued on 29.03.2023, notifying the heads of

institutions about the discontinuation of the petitioners' services from

28.04.2023, represent compliance with Clauses 6 and 7 of the Service

Agreements. However, this contention cannot be accepted because the

service agreements were renewed on 01.05.2023, extending them for an

additional year, and in the absence of individual notices and its services to

the petitioners herein.

27. The learned Government Pleader for School Education contends that

the contract service agreements entered into by the respondents had

already concluded with the Academic Year 2022-2023. Furthermore, they

argue that the agreements submitted by the petitioners and entered into by

the Principal of the concerned institution were unauthorized and should

not be considered. However, this argument is untenable and

unsustainable. In the past, the Principals were authorized to enter into

NV,J

service agreements, as exemplified by the action taken on 01.05.2023.

Additionally, it's worth noting that specific notices were not issued to either

the petitioners or the concerned institutions; instead, only common

proceedings dated 29.03.2023 were issued and the same was kept for their

records.

28. The entire action of the respondents having entered into fresh

agreements and having notified all the posts for fresh recruitment vide

Notification dated 27.05.2023 and not notifying the posts of Telugu

Language Teachers is also a discrimination on the part of the petitioners,

for the reason that the said action of the respondents indicates

discouragement of original language/Mother Tongue to the students, which

is also against the National Education Policy, 2020 which has propounded

that Primary Education to impart Mother Language in the State of Andhra

Pradesh.

29. Numerous legendary personalities and legal luminaries have

expressed their views on the issue of „Hindi‟ as National Language and the

vernacular or mother tongue is the best language to be used in the schools.

The views of all of them are not possible to be inserted, but views of

selective personalities are quoted for guidance. The views of the greatest

legend of India Swami Vivekananda on mother tongue from the book "The

Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, 9 vols.", the relevant portion of

which is as under:

NV,J

"Though all natural languages are capable of expressing sublime thoughts, modern schools believe that the language one acquires as the mother tongue is the best medium for transmitting information, ideas, and knowledge. The concepts presented in the mother tongue are grasped much easier than any language that one learns later through formal instructions. The mother tongue is to the mind as blood is to the body. Therefore, teaching children in the mother tongue can produce better results. There is enough evidence to show that learning and language are closely related to each other. Every man is capable of receiving knowledge if it is imparted in his own language."

30. The mother tongue is the best medium of transformation. The

concept can easily be grasped in mother tongue, therefore, teaching

children in mother tongue can produce better results. Learning and

language are closely related, if knowledge is imparted in own language, a

child is easily capable of receiving knowledge. It is expressed that the

language accepted by all is the language that lives the longest. In the said

context, the quote of Nelson Mandela is relevant. It is expressed by him, "If

you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head and

if you talk to him in his language that goes to his heart."

31. In Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department,

Guntur8, the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

Writ Petition (PIL) Nos. 183 & 185 of 2019 dated 15.04.2020

NV,J

22. Mahatma Gandhi said that the English language has usurped the dearest place in our hearts. He likened the mother tongue alike to mother and observed, "We do not have that love for it, as we have for our mother". In Young India 1921, Gandhiji said "I must cling to my mother tongue as to my mother‟s breast, in spite of its shortcomings. It alone can give me the life-giving milk" (Harijan, 1946). Citing the example of Russia, which has achieved the scientific progress without the knowledge of English, Gandhiji reiterated, "It is the mindset that has created the gulf. It is our mental slavery that makes us feel that we cannot do without English. I can never subscribe to that defeatist creed." In the speech delivered by Mahatma Gandhi on 20.10.1917 in Second Gujarat Educational Conference, he expressed "English cannot fulfil all criteria, but Hindi can". In his article written in London in 1909

- Mother Tongue and National Language, he said that he considered it a matter of shame that those who know English boast of their proficiency in the language than in their own mother-tongue in favour of English.

In his opinion, "Those who have to serve their country and do public work will have to find time for their mother tongue. If English can only be learnt at the expense of the mother tongue, it would be in the interest of the country that one does not learn English at all." Gandhiji in his book The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi said, "The baby takes its first lesson from its mother and I, therefore, regard it as a sin against the motherland to inflict upon her children a tongue other than their mother‟s for their mental development".

23. Rabindranath Tagore in his book Siksar Herpher (1299 B.S.) emphasized the need for a system of education conducted in congenial surroundings and in a manner surcharged with the spirit of joy. He argues that the ultimate aim of education should be the all-round development of an individual for harmonious adjustment to reality. It advocated the value and need of the mother tongue in providing all the necessary educational nourishment of the child. In his editorial column "Sadhana", wrote that he was firm on his stand for the place of the mother tongue in education, but nevertheless he insisted that English may be taught as a language and that, from early years, in wise doses, and in the proper sequence, only as a supplement to the mother tongue.

24. In the view of Dr.Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, realising the aim of education is to bring nearer to God. In his aim, one should study the various aspects of education. Through education, he wants to establish a classless society in order to bring equality between man and man. He wants that education should develop universal brotherhood. The most important aim of education is to help us to see the other world, the invisible and intangible world beyond the space and time. Education has to give us a second birth to help us to realise what we have already in us. Education should enable one to imbibe attitude of simple living and high thinking. The true aim of education, according to the Indian

NV,J

sages, is second birth. We are born into the world of nature and necessity; we must be reborn into the world of spirit and freedom. In silence and meditation, we discover the spirit in us, learn truth and love, acquire grace and strength by which we can implement our ideas."

32. In Rattan Lal vs. State of Haryana (referred supra), the Hon‟ble

Apex while considering the State Government‟s practice of appointing large

number of teachers on ad hoc basis at the commencement of academic

year, terminating their services before next summer vacation or earlier and

reappointing them on ad hoc basis at the commencement of the next

academic year, held that, ad hoc teachers are subject to unreasonable and

arbitrary "hire and fire policy". Such policy of ad hocism followed by the

State Government for a long period resulted in breach of Articles 14 and 16

of the Constitution of India.

33. In Manish Gupta vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti (referred

supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court while dealing with similar circumstance,

directed the writ petitioners therein to continue to work on their respective

posts till regular selections are made.

34. In Murad Ali Sajan vs. UT of J & K, the High Court of Jammu and

Kashmir, while relying on the above judgments, held as follows:

"19.In view of the clear dictum of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Manish Gupta's case (supra) by relying upon its earlier judgments in Ratan Lal and Ors v. State of Haryana and Hargurpratap Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors, it

NV,J

was not open to the respondents to invite the applications from the candidates for filling up of posts of Staff Nurses on academic arrangement basis after disengaging the services of the petitioners, who were already working on a similar arrangement with the respondents. It may be correct to say that the petitioners are not entitled to seek extension of their contractual engagement but at the same time the respondents' action of replacing the academic WP(C) No.2635/2022 CM No.6660/2022 arrangement by another similar arrangement cannot be countenanced in law. The respondents can only replace the petitioners by filling up the vacant posts of Staff Nurses on substantive basis, which they have not chosen to do."

35. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Apex Court and

other High Courts in the judgments referred supra, this Court is of the

opinion that the respondents have terminated the services of the petitioner,

illegally and arbitrarily.

36. The appointments of the petitioners were made after the candidates

had gone through due selection procedure. Though the learned

Government Pleader for School Education has strenuously urged that the

appointments of the petitioners were as Part Time Post Graduate Teachers

and not as ad hoc employees, from the nature of the notification dated

17.06.2019, it could clearly be seen that the appellants were appointed

on ad hoc basis. It is a settled principle of law that an ad hoc employee

cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee and he can be replaced

NV,J

only by another candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular

procedure prescribed.

37. The central issue at hand in the current writ petition is whether the

State Government can repeatedly hire teachers on an ad-hoc basis at the

start of each academic year, terminating their services before the next

academic year begins, and then renewing these appointments after a short

break. This practice is particularly prevalent in filling long-standing

vacancies that have remained unfilled for several years. It is the

responsibility of the State Government to expedite the appointment of

teachers to these vacancies in accordance with established regulations. The

ad-hoc appointments are limited to a twelve-month period and are renewed

after brief intervals. A significant number of teachers in Andhra Pradesh

are hired in this manner, and they are unjustly deprived of entitlements,

such as summer vacation benefits, along with their salary and allowances

during that time, as well as other privileges like casual leave, medical leave,

maternity leave, and more, which are typically provided to all government

employees. This pernicious practice of ad-hoc appointments by the State

Government leads to the unnecessary application of an arbitrary 'hiring

and firing' policy, particularly affecting the bulk of educated unemployed

individuals who reluctantly accept these ad-hoc positions under

unfavorable working conditions. The government's seeming exploitation of

this situation is not conducive to sound personnel management. Such a

NV,J

policy is likely to have detrimental effects on educational institutions and

the students studying there. The prolonged adherence to this 'ad-hocism'

policy by the State Government raises concerns about its compliance with

the constitutional principles of Article 14 and Article 16. This situation

cannot be allowed to persist any longer. It should be emphasized that the

State Government is expected to serve as a role model employer in this

regard.

38. Therefore, this Court directs the State Government to promptly

initiate actions to fill the existing vacancies, in accordance with the relevant

rules, in which individuals are currently serving on an ad-hoc basis. It is

also ordered that all those currently holding these ad-hoc positions be

permitted to continue in their roles until the vacancies are properly filled.

Furthermore, teachers presently working in ad-hoc positions, provided they

meet the required qualifications, are encouraged to apply for regular

appointments in those positions. If any petitioner in these cases has, in

accordance with existing rules, earned the right to be recognized as a

regularly appointed teacher, the State Government shall review their case

and issue an appropriate decision.

39. This Court expresses strong disapproval of the State Government's

policy, which unjustly denies salary and allowances to 'ad-hoc' teachers

during the summer vacation period by creating fictitious breaks, as

described above. In light of this order, 'ad-hoc' teachers will receive their

NV,J

salary and allowances for the duration of the summer vacation for as long

as they remain in their positions. Those who are entitled to maternity or

medical leave shall also be granted such leave in accordance with the

established regulations.

40. In the result, writ petition is allowed with the following directions:

i. The action of the Respondent Nos.5 to 110 in attempting to discontinue or disrupt the services of the petitioners i.e. PGT Teaching Telugu & English is declared as illegal and arbitrary;

ii. The respondents are directed to continue the services the petitioners in terms of the respective agreements.

iii. The respondents are directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioners even after completion of the agreement after academic year 2023-2024, as long as the said scheme is in existence.

41. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also

stand closed.

____________________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Date:05.12.2023 SP