Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUREPALLI NANDA, J.
K. Yadagiri - Petitioner
Versus
The State of TG., Rep. by its Prl. Secretary and Others - Respondents
W.P. No. 19615 of 2015
Decided On : 26-09-2022
Mandamus - School Education - G.O.Ms.No.524/Education, dated 20.12.1988, Articles 14, 21-A and 45 of the Constitution of India - The court allowed the writ petition, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.3 in not approving the proposals dated October 2013 in R.C.No.34/2013 submitted by the 5th Respondent as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice. The 1st and 3rd Respondents are directed to approve the proposals of the 5th Respondent dated October 2013 in R.C.No.34/2013 within 3 weeks from today and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and duly communicate the same to the petitioner. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not approving the proposals dated October 2013 in Rc.No.34 of 2013 submitted by the 5th respondent management as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not approving the proposals as illegal, improper, unjust and violative of principles of natural justice, and directed the 1st and 3rd respondents to approve the proposals within 3 weeks and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issue was the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not approving the proposals submitted by the 5th respondent management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prior approval of the District Educational Officer and the qualifications of the petitioner, and found that the inaction of the 3rd respondent was unjust and violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the 1st and 3rd respondents were directed to approve the proposals of the 5th respondent within 3 weeks and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education.
2. The petitioner filed this writ petition to issue an appropriate Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent in not approving the proposals dated .10.2013 in Rc.No.34 of 2013 submitted by the 5th respondent management as illegal improper unjust and violative of principles of natural justice.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows :
(a) The 5th respondent was first having 1st to 7th classes and got grant in aid for primary classes and later school has been upgraded to high school by opening 8th, 9th and 10thclasses from the year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94 and admitted into grant in aid from 11.11.1994 and one post of School Assistant and two SGTs were sanctioned, later one more School Assistant, one Telugu Pandit, one Hindi Pandit and three SGTs were admitted to grant in aid from 16.12.2003 and those posts were filled up by absorption of unaided teachers. Thus, the school has become full-fledged aided high school.
(b) In order to handle the classes, the authorities directed to create unaided post according to the need of the school and accordingly, the 5th respondent management has got approval of certain unaided teacher posts.
(c) The petitioner was working as Assistant from 1988 and acquired Madhyama Visaradha from Allahabad University in the year 1995 and also undergone Hindi Sikhak Training at Yadagir, Karnataka State in the year 1999. Thus, the petitioner fully qualified to hold the post of Hindi Pandit from the date of acquiring the training qualification.
(d) One H. Ramachanderji, who was appointed on 02.01.1987 in unaided post and got approved by the 3rdrespondent in the unaided post in the year 1994-95 in Hindi Pandit Grade I post. Then there was a requirement of Hindi Teacher to handle the Hindi Classes from 6th to 10th in addition to the existing in the Hindi Pandit. As such Management had appointed the petitioner as Hindi Pandit II from the date of the acquiring requisite qualification i.e. from 29.04.1999 in unaided post. Accordingly, the management submitted the proposals to the 3rd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.3/92-3, dated 04.02.1999 and the same was approved by the 3rd respondent on 08.07.1999 vide proceedings No.C1/1143/94-2.
(e) In the 4th respondent school one post of Hindi Pandit fell vacant and the senior unaided employee who was working in the school had resigned to the post. Accordingly, the 5threspondent management submitted proposals to the 3rdrespondent, but in proceedings Rc.No.3/92-3, dated 04.02.1999, by that time, the Government had imposed a ban on recruitment/promotions as such the petitioner‘s absorption could not be done along with the other unaided approved teachers.
(f) The 5th respondent Management again submitted proposals on .10.2013 to the 3rd respondent and the 3rdrespondent has not approved the petitioner’s appointment into the aided post which is kept vacant. The petitioner orally and virtually requested the 5th respondent Management and the 3rd respondent to absorb him into the aided post, but in vain. Hence, this writ petition is filed.
4. The Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the following judgments and prays for allowing the writ petition as prayed for.
(ii) The Judgment dt. 13.07.2013 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 9503/2005, 7055/2006 and 23292 and 22580/2010.
(iii) Order of the Apex Court dt. 14.09.2015 passed in SLP(C) No.8547/2014.
(iv) Order dt. 11.04.2022 in W.P.No.23/2013 in Farhat Anjum v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others.
5. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 is as follows :
(a) The petitioner is an employee of the 5th respondent and that the 5th respondent is having two sc
Judicial scrutiny ensures that teacher appointments in minority institutions cannot be denied without substantiated evidence of surplus staff, upholding equitable rights to employment.
Absorption into aided posts requires adherence to established rules and qualifications; long service alone cannot justify irregular appointments.
The main legal point established is that routine affairs of an institution, including appointments and approvals, should be considered independently of disputes in management.
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
