The court affirmed deemed approval for teacher appointments due to the respondent's failure to act within legal timelines and ruled that objections for rejection were legally invalid.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in Rc.No.6535/B2/2005, dated 06.07.2011, whereby the 2nd respondent rejected the approval for the selection and appointment of the petitioners forwarded by the 4th respondent.

2. Sri K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K. Raghuveer, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners were appointed as secondary grade teacher, physical education teacher and Telugu Pandit Grade-II, respectively. The petitioners were appointed after following the procedure of the staff selection committee in accordance with the rules. The 3rd respondent forwarded the proposals to the 2nd respondent to approve the selections vide proceedings dated 04.12.2004.

3. The District Education Officer, Kurnool, on the proposal submitted by Deputy Educational Officer, Dhone had accorded permission to fill up the vacancies. The selection committee also consisted of the Deputy Educational Officer, Dhone as a nominee of the Government. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 31.05.2005 rejected the approval on various grounds.

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in accordance with the Rule 12(8), the competent authority must pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of proposals and if the competent authority does not pass necessary orders within two months it is deemed approval.

5. The petitioners filed WP No.9389 of 2005, aggrieved by the orders of the 2nd respondent, dated 31.03.2005; this Court allowed the writ petition on 24.03.2011. The learned Single Judge negated the contentions of the respondents and also referred to the judgment of this Court in WP No.9375 of 2005. The writ appeal preferred by the State was dismissed, and the SLP preferred by the State was also dismissed. This Court, while allowing the writ petition vide its judgment dated 24.03.2011, relegated the matter to the 2nd respondent to consider the case of petitioners for approving the proposals sent by the District Education Officer, dated 04.12.2004.

6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned proceedings passed by the 2nd respondent unmindful of the observations of this Court in WP No.9389 of 2005. The following three grounds are cited for rejecting the approval of appointments. They are :

(i) The management has not followed the rule of reservation as per Rule 12(6) of the Rules in G.O. Ms. No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994.

(ii) As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the act was amended as Act 78-C added to the Andhra Pradesh Education Act; 1982 in Act No.40 of 2008, the Rule of Special Representation (Reservation) in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes shall be applicable for appointments to the posts in Private Educational Institutions :

(iii) The Government of A.P. have imposed ban on to fill up the aided posts as per Government Memo. No.12080/COSE/A2, 2004, dated 20.10.2004 and the issue pertains to the rationalization of Teaching aided posts and filling up of posts is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide SLP No.9541/2007.

7. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the petitioners that this Court granted interim orders dated 11.08.2011 directing the 2nd respondent to accord approval for the appointment of the petitioners. Aggrieved by this order WA No.1133 of 2012 was preferred, which was dismissed on 12.09.2012 and the SLP filed by the respondents was also dismissed