About Me

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

Sunday, January 25, 2015

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 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.