P. Jaishree, v. Edu. Dept. Rep. By Prl. Sec. And 3 Others,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.18604 of 2004 ORDER :

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.115-C7/2003, dated 05.01.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent as arbitrary and illegal and also holding that the provisions in G.O.Ms.No.180 Education (PS.1) Dept., dated 29.12.2000, G.O.Ms.No.100, Education (PS.1) Dept., dated 16.08.2001 and the provisions of A.P. Private Aided Educational Staff (Regulation of Pay) Act, 2000 (Act 9 of 2000) have no application in respect of absorption of petitioner from approved unaided post and direct the respondents to fix the pay scale of petitioner in accordance with law.

2.

Heard Sri N.Jaya Surya appearing for Sri V.B.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Education.

3.

It has been contended by the petitioner that she was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 4th respondent school on 13.06.1987. While she was working as a teacher, the competent authority was pleased to approve her appointment vide proceedings dated 21.10.1992 with effect from 13.06.1987. While the petitioner was working as teacher, an aided vacancy has arisen in the 4th respondent school consequent upon the retirement of a regular incumbent. Then the case of the petitioner was considered for absorption into an aided post by the third respondent vide proceedings dated 10.11.2003. But however, the petitioner was not extended with regular pay scale attached to the post of teacher.

The petitioner was paid initially, an amount of Rs.1,200/- per month for the first year and Rs.1,500/- per month for the second year till the absorption of the petitioner, as an apprentice, as it was done in the case of directly recruited teachers. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed contending that the respondents cannot treat petitioner's absorption into an aided post as an apprentice and extend Rs.1,200/- per month for the first year and Rs.1,500/- per month for the second year, as stipend, and on the other hand, she is entitled for regular pay scale. 4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that similar issue has been adjudicated by this Court in W.P.No.11332 of 2002 wherein this Court vide orders dated 17.11.2003 was pleased to allow the said writ petition with the following observation: ".........The absorption of the petitioner from an unaided post to aided post, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be a new selection, justifying the official respondents to place him under apprenticeship in terms of the newly inserted sub-rule (4-a) to Rule 12 of the Rules framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 1-1-1994, by reason of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.180, Education, dated 29.12.2000 and the subsequent amendment made thereto by reason of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.100, Education, dated 16-8-2001.

The absorption of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post having been made in accordance with the Rules framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 1-1-1994, and his selection also to the unaided post having been made in terms of the said Rules by following the due process of recruitment by the duly constituted Staff Selection Committee, which is a condition precedent for absorption of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post, the selection of the petitioner from an unaided post to aided post, cannot be treated as a new selection, so as to make the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.180, Education, dated 29.12.2000 and G.O.Ms.No.100, Education, dated 16-8-2001, applicable to the petitioner, justifying the official respondents to place the petitioner under apprenticeship and pay him stipend.

In the above view of the matter, the impugned orders cannot be sustained, and they are accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents shall treat the absorption of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post, as having been made in accordance with the Rules issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 1-11004 and not G.O.Ms.Nos.180, Education, dated 29-12-2000 and G.O.Ms.No.100, Education, dated 16-8-2001, though he was absorbed when the said G.Os. were in existence. As a consequence thereof, the absorption of the petitioner in the aided post shall be treated as not on apprenticeship and he shall be paid the scale of pay attached to the post in which he was absorbed. No costs."

The learned counsel contends that since the issue raised in this writ petition is also identical, the same deserves to be allowed. He further contended that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge referred to supra, were also confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.273 of 2004, dated 22.08.2013. 5.

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not disputed about the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.11332 of 2002, dated 17.11.2003 and also about the fact that the same is confirmed in W.A.No.273 of 2004, dated 22.08.2013. In view of the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can also be disposed of in terms of the orders passed in W.P.No.11332 of 2002, dated 17.11.2003. Therefore, the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.115-C7/2003, dated 05.01.2004 issued by the 3rd respondent are set aside and the respondents are directed to treat that the petitioner has been absorbed in aided post instead of treating her as an apprentice and the petitioner is entitled for a regular pay scale attached to the post of an aided teacher by duly taking into account the services rendered by her from 13.06.1986.

6.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 17th AUGUST 2018 Tsr