HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 10124 OF 2018

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to have been appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4^th Respondent School on 19-09-1991 in an ‘unaided post’ and subsequently, in ‘regular post’ with effect from 24-09-1994 under ‘Grant-in-Aid’ proceedings issued by the 3rd Respondent. The grievance of petitioner is that after appointment to regular post, her scale of pay was fixed afresh starting with minimum pay as per Pay Revision Commission, 1993, thus depriving her of pay protection. Thus, she had to forfeit three years of service in respect of pay fixation, seniority and experience after her appointment in ‘aided post’ with effect from 24-09-1994.

According to petitioner, not counting the service in ‘unaided’ post for pay fixation, automatic advancement scheme and career advancement scheme is unconstitutional, as was held by this Court in Y. Sidda Reddy vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2006 (3) ALD 546 and Writ Petition No. 3460 of 2010 and batch. By virtue of the said decision, she deserves pay

protection after appointment to the ‘grant-in-aid’ post with effect from 24-09-1994 by taking into account her service in ‘unaided’ post from 19-09-1991 to 23-09-1994 and consequential benefit of automatic advancement scheme and career advancement scheme with three years of valuable retrospective seniority.

It is contended that petitioner is a member of Telangana United Teachers’ Federation which submitted representation dated 03-10-2017 to the 1st Respondent to revive the annual grade increments to all the teachers by taking into account their service in ‘unaided posts’ in compliance with this Court’s decisions mentioned supra, but till date, there is no response. When, petitioner personally approached Respondents 1 to 3, she was orally told that since she was not a party in Writ Petition No. 3460 of 2010 and batch, her case cannot be considered.

2. The case of respondents, as put-forth by the District Educational Officer is that pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, during 1994, the management notified the Aided Post to the Employment Exchange and advertised in the local news papers for recruitment of teachers and after the recruitment and selection process, appointed petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher in OC Category in Rc.No. 48/94-95 dated 19.09.1994 and Rc.No. 170/94-95 dated 01.10.1994. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad who is the competent authority for approval of the Aided Post approved the appointment of petitioner as Secondary Grade Teacher (Aided Post) at Roster Point No. 12 (OC) in Rc.No. 7524/A-III/94 dated 03.10.1997. Aggrieved by the appointment of petitioner from 03.10.1997 instead of 24.09.1994, Petitioner along with others filed Writ Petition No. 18590 of 2001 which was allowed by order dated 01.10.2001. Pursuant thereto, modified orders have been issued by the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad dated 15.04.2002 approving the appointment of petitioner in the Aided Secondary Grade Teacher Post from 24.09.1994. The services rendered prior thereto are purely a contractual obligation between petitioner and the management. In the instant case, there is neither sanctioned unaided post in the school nor is there any approval of petitioner by the competent authority to the Unaided Post, hence, the request of petitioner to count his service in un-aided post with effect from 19-09-1991 to 23-09-1994 for the purposes of fixation of pay, automatic advancement scheme and career advancement scheme does not arise. The said scheme is applicable to the persons who have been appointed in sanctioned un-aided posts and whose appointment is approved by the competent authority.

It is contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Govt. of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806, held that “It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointme