Telangana High Court

K.Yadagiri vs The State Of Tg., Rep Byits ... on 26 September, 2022

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

      THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

                   W.P. No. 19615 of 2015
ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Government Pleader for School Education.

2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an

appropriate Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the

3rd respondent in not approving the proposals dated

.10.2013 in Rc.No.34 of 2013 submitted by the 5th respondent

management as illegal improper unjust and violative of

principles of natural justice.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The 5th respondent was first having 1st to 7th classes

and got grant in aid for primary classes and later school has

been upgraded to high school by opening 8th, 9th and 10th

classes from the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and

admitted into grant in aid from 11.11.1994 and one post of

School Assistant and two SGTs were sanctioned, later one

more School Assistant, one Telugu Pandit, one Hindi Pandit

and three SGTs were admitted to grant in aid from WP_19615_2015 2 SN,J

16.12.2003 and those posts were filled up by absorption of

unaided teachers. Thus, the school has become full-fledged

aided high school.

b) In order to handle the classes, the authorities directed

to create unaided post according to the need of the school

and accordingly, the 5th respondent management has got

approval of certain unaided teacher posts.

c) The petitioner was working as Assistant from 1988 and

acquired Madhyama Visaradha from Allahabad University in

the year 1995 and also undergone Hindi Sikhak Training at

Yadagir, Karnataka State in the year 1999. Thus, the

petitioner fully qualified to hold the post of Hindi Pandit from

the date of acquiring the training qualification.

d) One H.Ramachanderji, who was appointed on

02.01.1987 in unaided post and got approved by the 3rd

respondent in the unaided post in the year 1994-95 in Hindi

Pandit Grade I post. Then there was a requirement of Hindi

Teacher to handle the Hindi Classes from 6th to 10th in

addition to the existing in the Hindi Pandit. As such

Management had appointed the petitioner as Hindi Pandit II

from the date of the acquiring requisite qualification i.e. from WP_19615_2015 3 SN,J

29.04.1999 in unaided post. Accordingly, the management

submitted the proposals to the 3rd respondent vide

proceedings in Rc.No.3/92-3, dated 04.02.1999 and the same

was approved by the 3rd respondent on 08.07.1999 vide

proceedings No.C1/1143/94-2.

e) In the 4th respondent school one post of Hindi Pandit fell

vacant and the senior unaided employee who was working in

the school had resigned to the post. Accordingly, the 5th

respondent management submitted proposals to the 3rd

respondent, but in proceedings Rc.No.3/92-3, dated

04.02.1999, by that time, the Government had imposed a ban

on recruitment/promotions as such the petitioner's absorption

could not be done along with the other unaided approved

teachers.

f) The 5th respondent Management again submitted

proposals on .10.2013 to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd

respondent has not approved the petitioner's appointment

into the aided post which is kept vacant. The petitioner orally

and virtually requested the 5th respondent Management and

the 3rd respondent to absorb him into the aided post, but in

vain. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

                                                                 WP_19615_2015
                                  4                                      SN,J

4. The Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the

following judgments and prays for allowing the writ petition as

prayed for.

(i) The Judgment dt. 06.09.2011 in Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others v. Sri Seva Das Vidyamandir High School & Others reported in 2011 (9) SCC page 613 in SLP (C) No.9541/2007 and batch.

(ii) The Judgment dt. 13.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P.Nos. 9503/2005, 7055/2006 and 23292 and 22580/2010.

(iii) Order of the Apex Court dt. 14.09.2015 passed in SLP(C) No.8547/2014.

(iv) Order dt. 11.04.2022 in W.P.No.23/2013 in Farhat Anjum v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others.

4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of

respondents 1 to 4 is as follows:

a) The petitioner is an employee of the 5th respondent and

that the 5th respondent is having two school assistants, five

secondary Grade Teachers, one Telugu Pandit and one Hindi

Pandit admitted into Grant in aid on various dates by the WP_19615_2015 5 SN,J

Government. The Management got approval of unaided

teacher posts to handle the classes which is the matter

related to Management only, but not the Government.

b) The 5th respondent Management submitted proposal on

.10.2013 to the 4th respondent. The erstwhile High Court in

W.P.No.9503 of 2005 and batch vide orders dated 30.07.2013

declared that the impugned ban Memo

No.12080/COSE/A2/2010, dated 20.10.2004 is illegal and

arbitrary and directed the respondents to accord permission

to fill up vacant Grant in aid post. Against the said orders,

the Government filed W.A.No.216 of 2014 before the Division

Bench and that the said writ appeal was confirmed by the

Division Bench on 25.02.2014. Against the orders of the writ

appeal, the Government filed SLP No.8547 of 2014 before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court

stayed the operation of the order of the Division Bench dated

25.02.2014 vide order dated 28.03.2014.

c) The State of Telangana was formed on 02.06.2014 and

steps are being taken in constituting a committee to give

suggestions/recommendations to solve the problem of Court

cases against the Government vide memo dated 20.10.2004 WP_19615_2015 6 SN,J

regarding imposing ban on the creation and filling up of grant

in aid posts in aided schools vide memo dated 24.06.2015.

d) Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as

against these respondents.

5. Perused the record :

6. The facts as borne on record and as evidenced by the

material documents filed by the Petitioner herein and also

undisputed by the Respondents are as follows:

a) The Petitioner has been appointed vide proceedings

R.C.No.14/1988, dt. 01.05.1988 of the 5th Respondent herein

as Teacher on consolidated pay of Rs.398/- p.m. and posted

at Sri Vani Vidya Nilayam, Nagarkurnool in an unaided post

created by the 5th Respondent Management.

b) The Petitioner has acquired intermediate and Madyama

Visharada from Allahabad University in April 1995 and also

undergone Hindi Shikshak Training at Yadgir at Karnataka

State and completed in April 1999.

c) The 5th Respondent herein vide Proceedings RC

No.3/92-3, dt. 04.02.1999 addressed to the 4th Respondent WP_19615_2015 7 SN,J

herein i.e, the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar

submitted its proposal for approval of the appointment of the

Petitioner as Hindi Pandit-II at the 5th Respondent's School

from the date of acquiring requisite qualification i.e., from

29.04.1999 in unaided post.

d) The Petitioner who was appointed as a Teacher in

unaided post created by the Management from 12.06.1988 is

appointed as Hindi Pandit-II by the 5th Respondent's school

vide Proceedings RC No.14/1988-2, dt. 01.05.1999.

e) Vide Proceedings No.C1/1143/94-2, dt. 08.07.1999 the

District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar was pleased to

approve and ratify the action of the Management with regard

to appointment of the Petitioner as Hindi Pandit-II after

acquiring the qualification from 01.05.1999 at the 5th

Respondent's school as Hindi Pandit-II.

f) The 5th Respondent herein vide its proceedings RC

No.34/2013, dated October 2013 addressed to the District

Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar the 4th Respondent herein

submitted a detailed report with regard to the absorption of

the Petitioner into vacant grant-in-aid post since the Petitioner WP_19615_2015 8 SN,J

was regularly working in the 5th Respondent school and since

there is sufficient work load of language Pandit.

7. The petitioner filed reply affidavit to the counter

affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 reiterating the

contentions raised in the writ affidavit.

8. Paras 7, 8 and 9 of the Counter Affidavit filed by

the Respondents No.1 to 4 read as under :

"Para 7 :

It is submitted that the management submitted proposal on __.10.2013 to the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar. It is to state that the Government imposed a ban vide Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2010, dt. 20.10.2004. Therefore at this stage, considering his case of absorption is not feasible due to ban.

Para 8 :

It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.9503/2005 & batch vide orders dt. 30.07.2013 declared that the impugned ban Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2010, dt. 20.10.2004 is illegal and arbitrary and violating Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India and directed the Respondents to accord permission to fill up vacant grant-in-aid post.

      Against       the     said       orders,        Government         filed
      W.A.No.216/2014         in   the     Hon'ble     High    Court,      the
                                                                      WP_19615_2015
                                     9                                        SN,J

Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court in its order dt. 25.02.2014 confirmed the order of the Learned Single Judge.

Para 9 :

Against the said orders the Hon'ble Division Bench Government have filed SLP NO.8547/2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dt. 28.03.2014 stayed the operation of the impugned order of the Division Bench dt. 25.02.2014 in WAMP No.663/2014 in W.A.No.216/2014. Thus the process of appointment/approval in filling up of grant-in-aid post is stayed by the Supreme Court".

10. CONCLUSION :

(A) The last para of the order dt. 13.07.2013 passed in

W.P.Nos.9503/2005, 7055/2006 and 23292 and

22580/2010 reads as under :

"Accordingly these Writ Petitions are allowed declaring that the impugned Memo No.12080/COSC/82/2004-04, dt. 20.10.2004 issued by the Education Department regarding the ban after creating or filling up of existing vacancies in the Private Educational Institutions except with the prior authorization of the Government, is illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21-A and 45 of the Constitution of India and direct the Respondents to accord permission to the Petitioners institutions to fillup the WP_19615_2015 10 SN,J

vacant grant-in-aid posts in accordance with the Rules. The Petitioners have not agitated about the other reliefs sought for and the same are, consequently, not granted. There shall, however, be no order as to costs."

(B) The order dated 14.09.2015 of the Apex Court in

SLP (C) No.8547/2014 and batch of connected cases

reads as under :

"The High Court has protected the interest of the State by making it clear that the appointments, if any, are to be made subject to the final result of the appeal pending before the High Court. The High Court has also clarified that for the time being the salary being paid to them shall also be subject to the final outcome of the appeals.

We do not find any merit in these special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed".

(C) It is submitted the reasons taken in the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 1 to 4, denying grant of relief to the Petitioner are twofold, firstly, Ban imposed by the Government vide Memo No. 12080/COSE/A2/2010, dt. 20.10.2004, and secondly, the Stay granted by the Supreme Court dt. 28.03.2014 passed in SLP No.8547/2014.

                                                            WP_19615_2015
                               11                                   SN,J

11. This Court opines that the two reasons pleaded by

the Respondents in the Counter Affidavit filed by the

Respondents No.1 to 4 extracted above cannot be held

to be valid now in view of the fact as borne on record

that the SLPs have been dismissed on 14.09.2015 (SLP

(C) No.8547/2014 & batch dated 14.09.2015.

12. This Court opines that the orders of approval of

the District Educational Officer, Mahabubnagar vide

R.C.No.C1/1143/94-2, dated 08.07.1999, approving the

appointment of the Petitioner as Hindi Pandit-II after

the Petitioner acquired the qualifications (i.e.,

Intermediate and Madhyama Visharda from Allahabad

University in April 1995 and also undergone Hindi

Sikhak training at Yadgir at Karnataka State and

completed in April 1999) i.e. from 01.05.1999 at the 5th

Respondent School and duly ratifying the action of the

Management as per the provisions contemplated in

G.O.Ms.No.524/Education, dated 20.12.1988 is prior to

the issuance of the Government Memo dated

28.10.2004. The Petitioner is entitled to be considered WP_19615_2015 12 SN,J

as working in the aided post of Hindi Pandit w.e.f.,

08.07.1999, since it is borne on record, that the

petitioner's case has been recommended by the High

Level Committee in its report dated .10.2013

whereunder it is observed as follows:

"It is further submitted that Sri K.Yadagiri i.e. the petitioner herein S/o Buchaiah, who is approved unaided Hindi Pandit is eligible and qualified for absorption into vacant grant-in-aid post and he is regularly working in the school as there is sufficient work load of language Pandit."

13. Taking into consideration the above referred

circumstances and also the law laid down by the

Judgements relied upon by the Counsel for the

Petitioner, and referred to and discussed above, the

Writ Petition is allowed declaring the inaction of the

Respondent No.3 in not approving the proposals dated

October 2013 in R.C.No.34/2013 submitted by the 5th

Respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of

principles of natural justice and the 1st and 3rd

Respondents are directed to approve the proposals of

the 5th Respondent dated October 2013 in

R.C.No.34/2013 within 3 weeks from today and pass WP_19615_2015 13 SN,J