JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G. Bala Rangaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in W.A. No. 480 of 2021 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2/writ petitioners in W.A. No. 482 of 2021.

2. W.A. No. 480 of 2021 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 and W.A. No. 482 of 2021 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012.

3. Though the judgments in the above writ petitions were delivered on two different dates, learned counsel for the parties submit that the respondents (appellants herein) in the writ petitions are same and the issue arising in both the writ petitions is also one and the same, and therefore, both the writ appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties had placed reliance on the pleadings and materials in W.A. No. 482 of 2021 and therefore, reference is made to the pleadings and material papers available in W.A. No. 482 of 2021.

5. Respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions, namely: Sri. Bala Siva Girls High School (Aided) represented by its President/Correspondent, Mydukur, YSR District, had issued paper notification dated 17.03.2002 in the local newspapers calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the unaided post of Secondary Grade Teacher (for short ‘the SGT’) and Grade II Hindi Pandit, meant for OC women and OC General, respectively, as per roster. For the post of SGT, 10 candidates appeared for selection and the 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012 was selected as SGT on 11.09.2002 by the Staff Selection Committee, wherein nominee of the Deputy District Educational Officer also participated, while for the post of Grade II Hindi Pandit, the 2nd petitioner and five others appeared before the selection committee and the 2nd petitioner was selected for the said post. It is pleaded that the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent to approve the selections made by the Selection Committee on several times, but no action was taken. It is also pleaded that the 4th respondent had been making representations to absorb the petitioners in the aided vacancies of SGT and Grade II Hindi Pandit as there were several vacant aided posts of SGT and Grade II Hindi Pandit and there are many instances of absorption of unaided teachers in aided vacancies. However, the petitioners were not absorbed.

6. With the aforesaid factual matrix, the writ petitions came to be filed praying for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (appellants herein) to consider the request of respondent No. 4-school for absorption of the writ petitioners in aided vacancies of SGT and Grade II Hindi Pandit respectively.

7. The case of the sole petitioner in W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 is similar to the case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012, except that the petitioner in W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 was selected by the Staff Selection Committee on 11.09.2002 for the post of Junior Assistant out of ten candidates.

8. The learned single Judge relied on the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 5189 of 2006 (P. Ramalinga Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Hyderabad) and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the aided posts held by them from the date of their original appointment with all consequential benefits. In order to give directions as noted hereinabove, the learned single Judge extracted the following portion of P. Ramalinga Reddy (supra):

“.........the respondent authorities are adopting a pick and choose selective methodology to suit their own vested interests for admitting particular incumbents to grant-in-aid posts