Whenever an institution is admitted to grant-in-aid, the existing Teachers are absorbed in the vacancies that are brought under that purview. That, however, would be possible, if only their initial appointment was in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Respondent No.5 was admitted to grant-in-aid through G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 01.09.1992. By that time, the petitioners were in service of the institution. The proposals were submitted by the institution for absorption of the petitioners against the aided vacancies. After examination of the matter in detail, respondent No.4 accorded approval through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993. Ever since then, they are being paid the emoluments by the Government and other facilities were also being extended.= Neither in the judgment nor in the G.Os. issued pursuant thereto, any indication was given to the effect that the exercise would cover the cases of the Teachers who have already been absorbed and such absorptions have been approved. In case the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, is to be treated as constituting the review of the absorption of the petitioners that took place in the year 1993, the basic requirement was to issue notice to them and then pass orders. There is not even a remote reference to the orders, dated 29.03.1993, passed by respondent No.4 in its G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999. At no stage of the proceedings, the petitioners or the Management were put to notice. Inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the enclosure to G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, cannot be sustained in law.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM              

WRIT APPEAL No. 780 of 2006  

01-12-2014

Government of Andhra Pradesh and others.... APPELLANTS  
       
V.Soma Sundaram and others....RESPONDENTS      
       
COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS:- G.P. for School Education      

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 1&2:- Smt.Anasuya          

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

(1). 1997 (6) ALD 331

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY        

AND

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM          

      WRIT APPEAL No.780 of 2006

JUDGMENT:- (per the Honble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)


      Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in W.P.No.4124 of 2000 filed this writ
appeal feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 11.07.2005, passed by
the learned Single Judge.

      For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the writ petition.

      The petitioners were appointed as Teachers in respondent
No.5-institution.  The institution was admitted to grant-in-aid by the
Government through its order in G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 01.09.1992.
Consequent upon that, the services of the petitioners were absorbed
against the posts of B.Ed. Assistants and proposals in that behalf
were submitted by the institution.  The District Educational Officer,
respondent No.4 herein, accorded approval for such absorption
through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993.  In the context of absorption
of Teachers working in the private educational institutions against
the aided vacancies, certain problems were faced.  In certain cases,
the initial appointment against the unaided vacancies was not in
accordance with the prescribed procedure.  Therefore, the
Government issued orders of relaxation in certain cases and similar
facility was denied in other cases.  A batch of writ petitions was filed
before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court dealt with the
matter, in detail, through its judgment reported in K.C. High School,
Guntur Vs. Government of A.P. Edn. Dept., Hyderabad . The Bench
has directed that the Government shall constitute a committee to
work out the modalities of absorption of the unaided teaching and
non-teaching employees in aided institutions wherever such
appointments were made contrary to the prescribed procedure, duly
extending the benefit of relaxation.  Further direction was that such
of the candidates, who are found to be eligible for absorption, must
be absorbed against the aided vacancies with effect from 1.4.1997,
irrespective of the date of their appointment or the date of admission
of the institution into grant-in-aid or the date on which the vacancy
has arisen.

      After undertaking the exercise indicated by this Court in the
Judgment referred to above, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.92,
dated 03.12.1999 absorbing the services of certain Teachers in
institutions in the Districts of Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam, East
Godavari, West Godavari and Chittoor.  The names of the petitioners
were shown at Serial Nos.14 and 15 in the Annexure appended to
the G.O.  Treating that the services of the petitioners were
regularised only with effect from 01.04.1997 under G.O.Ms.No.92,
dated 03.12.1999, the respondents sought to ignore the earlier
absorption of the petitioners.  Therefore, they filed the writ petition
challenging the said G.O.  The principal contention advanced by
them was that once their services were absorbed against the aided
vacancy through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993, issued by
respondent No.4, there was no occasion for the respondents to deal
with their cases under the judgment of this Court or the G.Os. issued
thereunder.

      The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating that the initial
appointment of the petitioners was not in accordance with the Rules
and since it needed relaxation, their cases were also considered in
compliance with the judgment of this Court in K.C. High Schools
case.  The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition through the
order under Appeal.

      Heard the learned Government Pleader for School Education
for the appellants and Smt.Anasuya, learned counsel for respondent
Nos.1 and 2.

      Whenever an institution is admitted to grant-in-aid, the existing
Teachers are absorbed in the vacancies that are brought under that
purview. That, however, would be possible, if only their initial
appointment was in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Respondent No.5 was admitted to grant-in-aid through
G.O.Ms.No.299, dated 01.09.1992.  By that time, the petitioners
were in service of the institution.  The proposals were submitted by
the institution for absorption of the petitioners against the aided
vacancies.  After examination of the matter in detail, respondent
No.4 accorded approval through proceedings, dated 29.03.1993.
Ever since then, they are being paid the emoluments by the
Government and other facilities were also being extended.

      Neither the petitioners nor respondent No.5 made an effort to
seek relaxation for absorption against the aided vacancies.  This is
obviously because the services of the petitioners were already
absorbed in the year 1993 itself.  However, a general and
comprehensive exercise was undertaken by the concerned
authorities in compliance with the orders passed by this Court in K.C.
High Schools case and the scheme framed by the Government  
thereafter.  Inadvertently or otherwise, the case of the petitioners
was also considered by those authorities and their names were
included in the list annexed to G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999,
giving an impression as though they were absorbed for the first time
with effect from 01.04.1997.  That happened under a total
misapplication and misconception of the scheme.  Neither in the
judgment nor in the G.Os. issued pursuant thereto, any indication
was given to the effect that the exercise would cover the cases of
the Teachers who have already been absorbed and such
absorptions have been approved.
      In case the inclusion of the names of the petitioners in
G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999, is to be treated as constituting the
review of the absorption of the petitioners that took place in the year
1993, the basic requirement was to issue notice to them and then
pass orders.  There is not even a remote reference to the orders,
dated 29.03.1993, passed by respondent No.4 in its G.O.Ms.No.92,
dated 03.12.1999. At no stage of the proceedings, the petitioners or
the Management were put to notice.  Inclusion of the names of the
petitioners in the enclosure to G.O.Ms.No.92, dated 03.12.1999,
cannot be sustained in law. The learned Single Judge has taken
such a view, though by stating some different reasons.  We do not
find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal.

      Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.  There shall be no order
as to costs.

      Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall also
stand disposed of.

_______________________  
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J    
_______________________  
CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J      
Date:01.12.2014 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515