Telangana High Court
Smt. Farahana Fatima vs The Government Of Telangana on 11 February, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 23042 OF 2014
O R D E R:
This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a direction to
Respondents 1 to 4 to absorb petitioners as teachers in grant-
in-aid posts in the 5th respondent school with all consequential
benefits.
2. The case of petitioners is that petitioners 1 to 5
joined the service of the 5th respondent-aided school as
Assistant Teachers and the 6th respondent as Attender on
02.07.2001, however, the request of the management for
absorption of petitioners working in un-aided post into grant-in-
aid posts was rejected in view of the ban orders issued in Memo
dated 20.10.2004.
3. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for
petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-I and Sri P.
Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. After
arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for petitioners
submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh
v. Sri Sevadas Vidhyamandir High School 1 and A.V.M. High
School v. State of Telangana 2.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners contend that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Sevadas Vidhyamandir High
Schoolo's case (supra) dealt with the nature of the ban on
recruitment imposed by the government i.e. whether it was
retrospective and would operate against recruitment processes
which had already been initiated. As the ban was imposed by
the government only under Memo dated 20.10.2004, the
Supreme Court held that the said ban was not given
retrospective effect and would therefore, not have application to
recruitment processes which had already been initiated.
Following the said law, in A.V.M. High School's case (supra),
the High Court for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh
observed that 'as matters stand, the only ground for rejection of
petitioner schools' request for grant-in-aid, as is evident from a
plain reading of the impugned memo dated 25.01.2011, was the
issue of the ban order being sub-judice before the Court. As that
case has culminated in a clear finding that the said ban order
2011(6) SLR 620(SC)
2016(3) SLR 593
would have no retrospective operation, the impugned memo is
set aside'.
5. In the instant case, since petitioners were appointed
prior to imposing ban, as per the law laid down supra, the said
ban will not have retrospective effect and therefore, would not
have application to recruitment processes which had already
been initiated. Further, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, New Delhi 3 wherein it has been held that
'when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain
grounds, its validity just be judged by the reasons so mentioned
and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of
affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning
may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later brought out', the ground
taken by Respondents 1 to 4 that the 5th respondent school did
not follow the procedure laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated
01.01.1994, cannot be accepted since the same was not taken
in the impugned memo. Further, Respondents 1 to 4 in their
AIR 1978 SC 851(1)
counter also admitted that the ban orders are prospective in
operation.
6. Yet another contention raised by Respondents 1 to
4 in their counter is that petitioners at present are not working
in the said school, based on the report submitted by the Deputy
Educational Officer, Bandlaguda, and grant-in-aid is meant for
management; if there is any grievance, it is for the management
to seek appropriate remedies and petitioners have no locus to
invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The said contention was denied by the 5th
respondent stating that report is contrary to the reports dated
09.04.2008 and 13.06.2008 of the Deputy Educational Officer
and the Director of School Education and the counter of
Respondents 1 to 4 is conspicuously silent about the first report
submitted by the DEO and there is no denial of the fact that the
department has not rejected the proposals sent by the
management within the time stipulated of three months, hence,
in view of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated 01.01.1994,
their appointments are deemed to have been approved and
subsequent ban cannot operate against earlier appointments.
Though petitioners in their individual capacity approached the
Court, the 5th respondent school in their counter, supported the
case of petitioners. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of
the opinion that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The
respondent authorities shall consider the case of petitioners for
absorption as teachers in grant-in-aid posts in the 5th
respondent school with all consequential benefits. No costs.
8. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand
closed.
-------------------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
11th February 2025
ksld
