THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITION No.7081 of 2023

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioners to the post of Secondary Grade Teachers (SGTs) as per their merit and rank despite of the orders of this Court in W.P.No.12724 of 2000 dated 31.07.2003 declaring them as more meritorious, the present Writ Petition is filed.

2) Heard Sri M.Ramgopal Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in response to DSC-1996 Notification, petitioners herein have applied, participated in the selection process for the post of SGT, secured marks 65, 59, 62.05, 62.50, 54.50, 66 and 65 and obtained ranks 1393, 2045, 1711, 1235, 2316, 1281 and 1430 respectively, and were declared as qualified to be considered for appointment to the said post. However, on account of administrative error and as the appointing authority has not followed the Rule of Reservation in respect of the candidates in proper manner, the petitioners were deprived of selection and appointments at that point of time. As such, they approached Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short ‘Tribunal’) as well as B.C. Commission. However, pending adjudication of the matter, the selection was concluded with a leftover of 41 vacancies of SGTs. Further, after DSC-1998 Notification was issued, petitioners and others have approached the Tribunal and filed O.A. No.7722 of 2000. Vide order dated 14.03.2002, the Tribunal has dismissed the said O.A. Challenging the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before this Court vide W.P.No.12724 of 2002 and vide order dated 31.07.2003, the appeal was disposed of observing that Rule 22 was not followed and left it open to the Government to consider the claim of the petitioners for appointment to the post of SGT.

3.1) Thereafter, the Government has issued G.O.Rt.No.1294, dated 09.12.2004, giving authorization to appoint 37 BC candidates against the unfilled 37 vacancies meant for BCs. Instead of giving appointment orders to the petitioners and others, the Commissioner and Director of School Education vide proceedings dated 21.12.2004 directed the District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, to re-cast the selection into one selection list and appoint the candidates if they are within the zone, which is beyond the purport of G.O.Rt.No.1294, dated 09.12.2004, as well as the interim relief granted by the Tribunal. Thereafter, when the petitioners filed C.A. No.232 of 2005, the Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.264, dated 19.04.2005, partially modifying G.O.Rt.No.124, dated 09.12.2004, and duly appointing three persons in order to avoid contempt proceedings. Thereafter, in respect of one V.Bikshapathi, G.O.Rt.No.923, dated 26.10.2007, was issued even though said individual was not within the selection zone and got less merit than the petitioners herein. Learned counsel has further contended that G.O.Ms.No.1294, dated 09.12.2004, was not totally superseded but was partially modified. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for appointment.

3.2) Though, the District Educational Officer, Nalgonda, vide letter dated 22.05.2014 has recommended to respondent No.2 to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment to the post of SGT in DSC-1996, but, respondent No.2, based on the recommendations of respondents No.3, stated that the petitioners are not under zone of consideration and thereby rejected their case. Learned counsel has further contended that though the Director of School Education sent proposal to Government on 05.03.2021 and 26.10.2021 along with a detailed report and to pass orders for authorizing the appointment of the petitioners, till date no orders were passed. By drawing the attention of this Court to several letters and proceedings, the learned counsel has contended that the petitioners are making efforts since 1996, yet, their case is not being conside