Smt. Sangeeta Kumari v. State Of A.P. Rep By Its Secretary

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.15431 of 2003 ORDER:

Heard.

2.

The present Writ Petition came to be filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not treating the date of appointment of the petitioner as Grade-II Hindi Pandit in the fourth respondentInstitution as 18.12.1997 and treating her date of appointment as 07.10.1998 as illegal and arbitrary.

3.

The facts in issue are as under:

The petitioner was appointed by the Staff Selection Committee as Hindi Pandit Grade-II in the fourth respondent-Institution with effect from 18.12.1997 when the post fell vacant. While things stood thus, the petitioner filed W.P.No.13603 of 1999, as she was not permitted to join in the institution, inspite of she being selected to the post on vacancy. The said writ petition was allowed and the Management permitted the petitioner to join the duty after issuing G.O.Rt.291, dated 04.10.1999, pursuant to which the petitioner's services were regularized. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her appointment date was treated as 07.10.1998 instead of 18.12.1997. 4.

A counter came to be filed disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It may be useful to extract relevant portion in paragraph No.4 of the counter, which reads as under: " It is submitted that Smt.Sangeetha Kumari, the petitioner herein was appointed and joined duty on 07.10.1998 as Grade-II Pandit in the unaided post. She appeared for the interview before the Selection Committee on 18.12.1997 and qualified for the vacant grant-in-aid post as Hindu Pandit Grade-II. Accordingly the management has

submitted the proposals and the department addressed letter seeking the finance clearance. Meanwhile, 9 other selected candidates filed W.P.No.13603 of 1999 on 05.07.1999 for approval of their appointments and the management of the school submitted the proposals to this respondent office vide letter dated 07.08.1999 and this respondent's officer forwarded the proposals to the Regional Joint Director of School Education vide Lr.No.11209/ C2/ 98, dated 01.09.1999. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.291, dated 05.10.1999 approving the appointments made by the managements from the date of their joining duty in the respective posts. Subsequently, the Regional Joint Director of School Education by his proceedings No.4687/ A1/ A3/ 99, dated 24.07.

2000 approved the appointment of the selected candidates from the dates of their joining in the respective posts. Since the petitioner had joined duty on 07.10.1998 only she cannot claim the seniority from 12.12.1997 i.e., date of selection. The fourth respondent might have selected the petitioner on 18.12.1997, but the same cannot be vested with any absolute rights to claim seniority from the date of selection. This Court by orders dated 19.12.2005 in W.A.No.2410 of 2005, held as follows: " Having considered the submissions made and on perusal of the record, we are of the opinion that Rule 12(9) of the Rules issued under the G.O.Ms.No.1 is very clear and it contemplates that unless and until approval is there, question of valid appointment does not arise and any appointment is subject to the approval.

Thus, in the absence of any approval, no right can be conferred to the individuals to make any claim. Merely because, the representative of the Government is present at the time of selection or the fact that there was selection, no enforceable right can be created. " Hence, her request to treat the date of appointment as 18.12.1997 i.e., the date of selection and consider the for promotion to the post of Grade-I Hindi Pandit treating the date of appointment as 18.12.1997 cannot be considered as she never worked in the said post prior to the date of her joining." 5.

Though various grounds are raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Hindi Pandit Grade-I, by virtue of G.O.Ms.40, dated 26.12.2013, no further adjudication is required in the writ petition.

6.

Having regard to the above, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

7.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order.

______________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR 27.02.2017 vhb