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
TMD,J
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
TMD,J
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
TMD,J
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
TMD,J
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,
TMD,J
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
TMD,J
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
