Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.S.LIBERHAN, V.V.S.RAO
M.BUCHA REDDY - Appellant
Versus
V.BHAGYAMMA - Respondent
Decided On : 09-30-99
EDUCATION - PROMOTION - SENIORITY - REGULARIZATION - AIDED POST - COMPETENT AUTHORITY - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - NATURAL JUSTICE - SETTLEMENT OUT OF COURT - INTERFERENCE WITH SETTLED POSITION - EQUITY AND JUSTICE - A. P. EDUCATION ACT, 1932 - SECTION 2(12), 89(A) - A. P. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (ESTABLISHMENT, RECOGNITION, ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF SCHOOLS UNDER PRIVATE MANAGEMENT) RULES, 1993.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Mistress, challenged the order of the 2nd respondent, Director of School Education, confirming the order of the 3rd respondent, Regional Joint Director of School Education, which directed the petitioner's reversion to the post of School Assistant and promotion of the 6th respondent, appellant, as Head Master. The petitioner contended that she was senior to the appellant and that the appellant had settled the matter out of Court in an earlier writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of the 2nd respondent was unsustainable as he had initiated the inquiry and come to conclusions with serious consequences for the petitioner, and then directed the competent authority to pass orders. The court further held that the 2nd respondent had virtually become the appellate authority against his own order, which violated the principles of natural justice. The court also held that interfering with the settled position after a lapse of ten years was against the principles of equity and justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the 2nd respondent was sustainable. 2. Whether the appellant was senior to the petitioner. 3. Whether the appellant had settled the matter out of Court in an earlier writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of the 2nd respondent was unsustainable as he had initiated the inquiry and come to conclusions with serious consequences for the petitioner, and then directed the competent authority to pass orders. The court further held that the 2nd respondent had virtually become the appellate authority against his own order, which violated the principles of natural justice. 2. The court held that the appellant was not senior to the petitioner as both the petitioner and the appellant were regularized in aided posts simultaneously. 3. The court held that the appellant had settled the matter out of Court in an earlier writ petition, and therefore, he could not get any benefit over and above the legitimate interest of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no error in the order of the learned single Judge warranting interference.
( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful 6th respondent.
( 2 ) THE parties are referred to by their rank in the impugned Judgment. d
( 3 ) THE controversy arises from the following facts which are taken fromthe necessary documents and the Judgment of the learned single Judge: The petitioner was working as Head Mistress of the 5th respondent School. She was initially appointed to the post of Secondary Grade Teacher (SGT) on 1-7-1982 and the said post has been admitted to grant-in-aid w. e. f 1-1-1984. She was promoted as School Assistant with effect from 1-1-1985 in unaided post. In the meanwhile, the Government of Andhra Pradesh - 1st respondent issued orders in G. O. Ms. No. 326, Education dated 17-10-1989 sanctioning grant-in-aid to the post of School Assistant w. e. f. 1-11-1989. This order does not say whether the post of School Assistant in Mathematics or the post of School Assistant in Science that was admitted to grant-in-aid. An inference can, however, be drawn that as there was only one post of School Assistant available at the relevant point of time and as the petitioner was holding the post of School Assistant, the 5th respondent passed orders absorbing the petitioner in the aided post of School Assistant and later she was promoted to the post of Head Mistress w. e. f. 1-4-1992 in the post admitted to aid in G. O. Rt. No. 354, Education, dated 5-3-1992.
( 4 ) THE 2nd respondent, acting on some complaints that the 5th respondent hhas committed certain irregularities in the matter of appointments and absorptions as well as promotions, ordered an enquiry into the matter by the joint Director (Vocational Education) in his proceedings dated 9-12-1995. After enquiry, the said Enquiry Officer submitted his report noticing some lapses on the part of the 5th respondent. Based on this enquiry report, the 2nd i respondent issued proceedings in Rc. No. 2859/d1-3-95-1 dated 27-10-1997 and while mentioning the detailed instructions therein, the 3rd respondent regional joint Director of School Education, Karhiguda was directed to revise the orders of promotion issued in favour ot the petitioner promoting her from sgt post to School Assistant and from School Assistant to Head Mistress. a In the proceedings dated 27-10-1998, the 2nd respondent while accepting the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 19-8-1997 with regard to the alleged irregular promotion of the petitioner stated as follows:"it is evident from the report of the Enquiry Officer that the management b has appointed/absorbed/promoled Smt. V. Bhagyamma from unaided post to aided post and orders given from SGBT. to School Assistant and School Assistant to Headmistress are irregular. Therefore, he is requested to revise the orders of Smt. V. Bhagyamma from SGBT to School assistant and from School Assistant to Headmistress as per rules. c Further, Smt. Bhagyamma has accepted promotion as School Assistant from 1-1-1985 but claimed salary against the post of SGBT from 1-3-1984 to February, 1992, that amount has to be prommited back either from the management or from the ind widual concerned. Hence, District educational Officer, Mahabubnagar may be requested to get the d verification of the amounts sanctioned towards grant-in-aid post of SGBT in which Smt. Bhagyamma worked from 1-1-1985 to 3-4-1992 and necessary instructions be given to the Management to remit the amounts to Government within 15 days. "
( 5 ) FROM a reading of the order of the 2nd respondent, it is clear that thedirector of School Education has specifically came to the conclusion that the promotion of the petitioner is irregular and directed the 3rd respondent to pass formal orders.
( 6 ) BE that as it may, the petitioner after receiving the show-cause noticef from the Regional Joint Director (RJD) filed a writ petition before this Court in W. P. No. 1446 of 1998 and this Court by order dated 15-12-1998 directed the petitioner to submit her explanation to the RJD. On fi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
