B.Hymarani v. Government Of A.P.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE P. NAVEEN RAO WRI T PETI TI ON (TR) No.984 of 2017 Dated:06.07.2017 Between:
B.Hyma Rani, D/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occu: Unemployee, R/o. H.No.2-4-1581/4, Ashoka Colony, Hanamkonda Post and Mandal, Warangal.
...Petitioner
AND Government of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022 and others.
.. Respondents CONTEMPT CASE (TR) No.88 of 2017 Dated:06.07.2017 Between:
B.Hyma Rani, D/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 41 years, Occu: Unemployee, R/o. H.No.2-4-1581/4, Ashoka Colony, Hanamkonda Post and Mandal, Warangal.
...Petitioner
AND Government of A.P., represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad - 500 022 and others.
.. Respondents The Court made the follow ing:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.NAVEEN RAO WRI T PETI TI ON (TR) No.984 of 2017 AND CONTEMPT CASE (TR) No.88 of 2017 COMMON ORDER:
Pursuant to the notification for appointment of Part Time Instructors issued on 28.08.2012, petitioner applied and was found suitable and on 01.10.2012 appointment order was issued appointing the petitioner as Part Time Instructor in Narsampet Mandal. Petitioner continued to work during the academic year 2012-13. Alleging that the petitioner was not allowed to continue her duties in the subsequent academic year and that her representation was not acted upon, she filed O.A.No.7146 of 2013, which is transferred to this Court. Tribunal granted interim order on 04.10.2013 directing respondents to pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner by considering her case in the existing vacancies at Chennaraopet Mandal of Warangal District. Alleging disobedience of the said interim orders, petitioner filed C.A.No.2223 of 2013, which is transferred to this Court. Praying to vacate the interim order granted, respondents filed V.M.A.No.25 of 2014. Since the alleged disobedience is against the interim orders and the writ petition is pending, both matters are taken up.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not allowed to continue after April, 2013 only on the ground that she does not belong to Narsampet Mandal and actually she belongs to Chennaraopet Mandal. Having selected the petitioner and appointed in Narsampet Mandal, it is not open to the respondents to terminate her services on that ground alone. By placing reliance on one of the instructions governing the selection and appointment of the Part Time Instructors in Sarva Shiksha Abhinay, learned counsel submits that when there is no candidate available in the particular category in the Mandal, persons belonging to another Mandal can be appointed. Therefore, appointment of petitioner is validly made and the learned counsel further contends that there is no justification to pass orders as directed by the Tribunal in not appointing the petitioner in the subsequent academic year even though vacancies were available by the time interim order was passed in Narsampet Mandal as well as in Chennaraopet Mandal.
4.
In the counter affidavit, it is categorically asserted that appointment of the petitioner was only for the academic year concerned and at the end of the academic year, the appointment ceases to operate. For the subsequent academic year a separate application has to be made and by following due procedure fresh appointments would be issued. It is contended that petitioner has not submitted application before commencement of the academic year, but made such an application only in August/September. Therefore, the question of consideration after commencement of the academic year would not arise. It is further asserted that as these posts are governed
by the provisions of Right to Education Act, 2009, the said posts are to be filled by the time academic year commences and accordingly, the posts were filled up and no vacancies were available in the subsequent academic year. Therefore, the question of accommodating the petitioner either in Chennaraopet Mandal or Narsampet Mandal for the subsequent academic year did not arise. These contentions of the respondens are not denied.
5.
Fact remains that the appointment of the petitioner was on Part Time basis and such appointment was for the academic year 2012-13. Therefore, it is not automatic for the petitioner to claim continuation beyond the academic year 2012-13 and merely because petitioner makes an application, grant of extension cannot automatically be considered without regard to observance of due procedure. Furthermore, as seen from the counter affidavit of the respondent Project Officer, the vacancies were already filled up consequent to the subject notification. Therefore, no direction as sought for can be granted. 6.
Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
7.
Having regard to the submissions made by the respondents in the counter affidavit and that the vacate petition was filed against ex parte interim order passed by the Tribunal, it cannot be said that the respondents have deliberately and wilfully violated the directions issued by the Tribunal warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. 8.
Contempt Case is, accordingly, closed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition (TR) and Contempt Case(TR) shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ JUSTI CE P.NAVEEN RAO Date:06.07.2017 INL