Telangana High Court
Qumar Sultana vs The Correspondent on 8 March, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.6806 OF 2003
ORDER
This is a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of
respondents 1 to 3 in not absorbing the petitioners in the aided vacant
posts, as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to
G.O.Ms.No.301, Education Department, dt.25.09.1997 and further to
direct the respondents to absorb the petitioners in the aided posts with
effect from 01.01.1997 as per the judgment of this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.No.15921 of 1989 and batch dt.31.12.1996 with all consequential
benefits including seniority, monetary, etc., and pass such other order or
orders in the interest of justice.
2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.
Krishna Murthy, submitted that the 2nd petitioner is no longer serving in
the organization and therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the 2nd
petitioner has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed as
regards the 2nd petitioner.
W.P.No.6806 of 2003
3. As regards the 1st petitioner, the brief facts are that the 1st
petitioner passed B.A. (Urdu) in 1990 and B.Ed. in 1992 and also
acquired M.A. post graduation in Urdu in the year 1994. It is submitted
by the 1st petitioner that the 1st respondent management appointed her as
Secondary Grade Teacher in a vacancy in an unaided post after
following the due procedure on 22.06.1992 pursuant to the notification
displayed by the management. It is submitted that the 1st respondent
management school was established in the year 1968 and it is an aided
school and hence it falls within the meaning of 'State' as defined under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and there were 15 posts of
Secondary Grade Teachers admitted into grant-in-aid in the year 1978.
The 1st petitioner was being continued and was discharging duties as
Secondary Grade Teacher. It is submitted that one K.Panduranga Rao,
Secondary Grade Teacher (Aided) and permanent employee retired on
30.06.1993 on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, there
was a clear vacancy in an aided post and that the 1st respondent
management wrote a letter to the 2nd respondent on 14.10.1993 to accord
permission to absorb the 1st petitioner in the said vacancy, but the 2nd
respondent did not consider the said proposal. It is submitted that one
more post of aided Secondary Grade Teacher fell vacant due to
promotion of one Anjaneya Sarma from 01.11.1993, but still that vacant
W.P.No.6806 of 2003
post was also not filled up by the petitioner. Challenging the non-
absorption of the petitioners into aided posts which had arisen as above,
the present Writ Petition is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the submissions
made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition.
5. Learned Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for
the respondents, relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit
stating that the 1st respondent school had been taken over by the
Government on 03.04.2003, whereas the present Writ Petition was filed
on 15.04.2003. It is stated that the names of the petitioners were not
included in the list of staff members of the school, teaching as well as
non-teaching, as on the date of conversion and therefore the petitioners
are not entitled to be absorbed into any post, leave alone any aided post.
6. Another contention of the respondents is that respondent No.1
management had not followed the due procedure for appointment of the
petitioners as teachers for the aided post and therefore they have no right
of absorption into the school. It is stated that the procedure for filling up
of aided posts is that respondent No.1 had to issue a Notification of
vacancies in two leading newspapers and a Committee was to be
constituted for selection and after conducting of the interviews only,
W.P.No.6806 of 2003
teachers can be recruited in the vacant posts. Since the petitioners were
not appointed by following the due process of recruitment, they cannot
be considered against any vacant aided posts.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
it is noticed that respondent No.1 institution has been taken over by the
Government on 03.04.2003 and therefore respondent No.1 is no longer
in existence. The writ petition was filed on 15.04.2003 and in view of
the submissions of the learned Government Pleader in the counter that
the names of the petitioners were not included in the list of staff
members of the school, teaching as well as non-teaching, they have no
locus to file the present Writ Petition. Therefore, the prayer of petitioner
No.1 for absorption into the aided post of respondent No.1 school from
the date of her appointment or from the date when a vacancy arose is not
sustainable.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall
also stand dismissed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 08.03.2022
Svv
