THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

WRIT PETITION No.46489 of 2016

AND

WRIT PETITION No.17048 of 2018

COMMON ORDER:

The petitioners are employed as Teachers against the vacancies

fallen vacant upon retirement of the then incumbents in grant-in-aid posts in the Schools under the 4^th respondent-Vivekavardhini Education Society, and the petitioners have rendered services for over two decades (as on the date of filing the writ petitions). It is their grievance that they made several representations to the management of the 4^th respondent to absorb them into aided posts, with all consequential benefits of service, in the light of G.O.Ms.No.75, Education Department, dated 23.09.2002 issued regarding filling up of vacant posts by way of absorption of persons working in unaided posts into aided posts. The proposals of the petitioners have been sent to the District Educational Officer in March, 2005, and they also attended personal hearing on 02.04.2005, however,

they have not been absorbed into aided posts till now.

1.1 In view of the commonality of grievance, these writ petitions

are analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of discussion, the facts in W.P.No.17048 of 2018 are

referred.

2. Brief facts of the case, as per the writ affidavit in W.P. No. 17048 of 2018, are that the petitioners are employed as Teachers against the

vacancies fallen vacant upon retirement of the then incumbents in grant- in-aid posts in the 4^th respondent-Vivekvardhini Education Society. It is their case that the Government vide G.O.Ms. No. 75, dated 23.09.2002, established a policy for filling vacant teaching posts through absorption of unaided teachers. As per this policy, the 4^th respondent-Society first submitted a proposal for the petitioners' absorption on 17.03.2004. This was followed by a significant development on 30.03.2005, when the 3^rd respondent-District Educational Officer (DEO) issued a letter summoning all six petitioners to a hearing on 02.04.2005, regarding their absorption. The petitioners complied, attending the hearing with their requisite documents. However, no decision was forthcoming, and further their case was countered by the respondent authorities by stating that the Government imposed ban on absorption on 20.10.2004.

2.1 Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities on the proposal of their absorption, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 25736 of 2008. This Court, by Order dated 15.12.2008, while explicitly noting that the case of the petitioners was approved prior to the ban of 20.10.2004 and cannot be subjected to the ban, directed the DEO to consider the absorption proposals of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders in the matter. The Order dated 15.12.2008 in W.P.No.25736 of 2008 was successively upheld, as the appeal filed by the respondents in W.A. No. 1578 of 2005 and the subsequent Special Leave Petition in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 9541 of 2007, dated 06.9.2011, ended in dismissal. It is the grievance of the petitioners that despite upholding of their case for absorption, by this Court and also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no response from the respondent authorities with regard to absorption of petitioners.

2.2 It is the further case of the petitioners herein that their junior colleagues Mr. Ashok Kumar Kharat, Ms. Sunith Chinchoolikar, and Ms. Anuradha Yadav, whose proposals were submitted later – i.e., on 26.07.2007, and 31.10.2003 – and successfully pursued litigation in W.P. No. 14013 of 2010 were ultimately absorbed into grant-in-aid posts. The petitioners state that the respondent initially negated the case of those juniors as well by alleging the same ban order, but this Court in the said case in W.P. No. 14013 of 2010, dated 30.01.2012, held the ban could not be applied retrospectively to cases submitted before such ban; and that judgment was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP on 11.08.2014, leading to the issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 8 on

18.02.2