HON’BLE MRS. JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA WRI T PETI TI ON No.7622 OF 2023

ORDER:

Heard Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I , appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The petitioners filed the writ petition seeking the following relief “… to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioners for admission and absorption in grant-in-aid post in spite of the recommendation made by the 3^rd Respondent to the 2^nd Respondent vide Lr. No. 6840/E4/2013, dated 27-07- 2013 as illegal and contrary to law and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in consequence thereof, direct the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioners herein by approving the post in grant-in-aid from the date of recommendation made by the 3^rd Respondent to the 2^nd Respondent with all consequential benefits by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ and pass...”.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were initially appointed as SGTs in the 4^th respondent School on 01.09.2009 and 28.08.2009 respectively. Nine posts were confirmed to be sanctioned in grant-in-aid vide Proceedings of the Commissioner & Director of School Education dated 11.03.2003 and the petitioners are at Sl.Nos.6 and 7 as in the list of 9 (nine) unaided posts have been appointed on 01.09.2009 and 28.08.2009 respectively. The petitioners further submit that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents did not consider the admission and absorption of the posts in grant-in-aid, resultantly, the petitioners are being deprived of equal pay on par with other SGTs, who are working in the regular schools. The further case of the petitioners is that respondents are acting against the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.8547/2014 and batch. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached the Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. PERUSED THE RECORD.

(A) The recommendation made by the 3^rd respondent to the 2^nd respondent vide Lr.No.6840/ E4/ 2013, dated

27.07.2013 is extracted hereunder GOVERNMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION From To The District Educational Officer, The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Lr.No.6840/E4/2013, Dt : 27.7.2013 Sir, Sub: Secondary Education – Sri Sai Vignana Vardhini Vidyalaya Upper Primary School (E.M.,), Amberpet, Hyderabad – Admission of the post into Grant-In-Aid as per Supreme Court orders – proposals – submitted – Reg.

Ref: 1. This office Lr.Rc.No.4065/C7/2025, dated 18.12.2003.

2. Commissioner and director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Proc. Rc.No.816/B4-3/2013 dated 15.6.2013.

3. The Hon’ble High Court orders in W.P. No.18144/2013, dated 8.7.2013.

4. The Deputy Inspector of Schools, Amberpet Mandal Lr.Rc.No. 49/ABPT/2013, dated 9.7.2013.

******

With reference to the subject cited, I submit that, the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad issued orders in W.P. No. 18144/2013, dated 8-7-2013 filed by Sri Sai Vignana Vardhini Vidyalayam School, Amberpet, Hyderabad regarding admission into Grant-In-Aid, as follows:-

"I hope and trust the necessary reports would be submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Amberpet Mandal, Hyderabad within a maximum period of two weeks and thereafter, proposals will be vested and processed by the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, and the Regional Joint Director of School, Hyderabad within a further period of three weeks, thereafter the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad would take necessary action thereon and communicate his decision within two weeks from the date the Regional Joint Director of School, Hyderabad makes available the records to him.

Registry is directed to list this matter after eight weeks for consideration".

In this connection, I submit that as per the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad proceedings in the reference 2^nd cite