The principle of parity mandates that similarly situated individuals must be treated equally in matters of service absorption and benefits.

ORDER :

This writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:-

“…….to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for records relating to and connected with Memo No.12637/P.S.II/2004 Education (S.E.P.S.II) Department dated 29.06.2006 of the 1^st respondent and quash or set aside the decision contained therein and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of absorption to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2001 as extended to Smt.Y.Sivaparvathi and Smt.V.Srilaxmi vide the Memo No.24383/PS.1/2002-1 dated 10.02.2003 and to direct the respondents to grant full pay and allowance to the petitioner from the date of absorption with all consequential benefits and pass such order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case……”

Brief case of the petitioner:-

2. As claimed by the petitioner, she initially joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in an un-aided post at S.G.V.R High School, Perecherla, Guntur District on 25.08.1998, after following the procedural pre-requisites, including the recommendation of Staff Selection Committee vide Resolution dt: 03.01.1998, along with two other Teachers. In the said S.G.V.R. High School, Perecherla, a vacancy arose due to the retirement of Sri B.Buchi Ramaiah on 30.12.2000. Consequently, from 01.01.2001 onwards a vacancy in the Secondary Grade Teacher post in grant-in-aid category emerged in the petitioner’s working school. It is also stated that Government Authorities vide Memo No.24383/P.S.1/2002-1, dt:10.2.2003 clarified and requested the 2^nd Respondent to approve the absorption, wherein the petitioner’s name along with 3 others was included.

3. It is further contended that the Government also agreed to the proposals of the 2^nd respondent for absorption of three Teachers. Out of the three Teachers, in respect of two Teachers, the Government absorbed them by taking into consideration the dates of vacancies arising in the aided posts. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned no specific date of her absorption was mentioned. The petitioner asserted that the 3^rd respondent through proceedings vide L.Dis.No.916/B1/2002 dt:14.06.2003, approved her appointment in respect of aided post from 23.04.2003 onwards. And also the petitioner was directed to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of two (2) years, during which, she was paid stipend instead of regular salary by applying the G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (P.S-1) Department dt: 16.08.2001.

4. It is also claimed by the petitioner that, to resolve her grievance, she preferred a representation to the respondent authorities. However, the 1^st Respondent vide Memo No.12637/P.S.II/2004, dt: 29.06.2006, rejected her request. The petitioner further contends that although the said aided post fell vacant from 01.01.2001, she was not absorbed from the said date.

5. The petitioner also states that, in the aforesaid Memo issued by respondent No.1, the date of absorption of the petitioner is not mentioned. However, the other two teachers recommended by Respondent No.2 were absorbed with effect from the date of the vacancy.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was directed to approve the case of the petitioner and two others for absorption as referred by him. Even though, she worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the aforesaid unaided School from 26.08.1988, due to her appointment to aided post w.e.f. 23.04.2004 i.e. date of absorption, she has to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of two years as per G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (PS-1) Department, dated 16.08.2001, for which, she was paid a stipend instead of regular salary attached to the post. It is further case of the petitioner that, her representation to absorb her services in unaided SGT to aided SGT w.e.f. 01.01.2001, was rejected by respondent No.1 vide memo dated 29.06.2006. Aggrieved by the said Mem