T.Appala Naidu v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.By Principal

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.1350 OF 2009 ORDER:

None appears for the petitioner.

The facts set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher on 22.04.2009 vide proceedings of the third respondent, dated 21.04.1999. The fourth respondent School is an unaided school and when one Secondary Grade Teacher was retired on 30.11.2001, the petitioner applied for consideration of his case for absorption in the said post. The proposals were submitted to the Government and no orders were passed. The petitioner filed W.P.No.10620 of 2003 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition by directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter the respondents 1 to 3 passed an order on 14.02.2005 rejecting the plea of the petitioner for absorption on the ground that the petitioner was appointed as against the un-aided post. Challenging the said order, the petitioner again filed W.P.No.6348 of 2005 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 28.12.2007 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for approval/appointment in the aided post.

The third respondent, keeping in view the total strength of the school from Class I to VII during the year 2001-02 and 2002-03 rejected the plea for absorption on the ground of 'uneconomic strength'. The third respondent also found two posts of aided teachers as surplus. In those circumstances, the services of the petitioner were terminated with effect from 22.10.2008 on the basis of the orders of the third respondent, dated 22.09.2008. Challenging the said orders of termination, dated 22.10.2008, the above writ petition was filed.

This Court, by order, dated 30.01.2009, suspended the said proceedings for a period of three weeks and it was extended by four more weeks. Thereafter, it was not extended.

It is evident from the above averments that the petitioner was appointed against the un-aided vacancy and the appellate authority did not approve for the absorption of the petitioner in an aided vacancy. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the termination of the service of the petitioner in view of the uneconomic strength by rejecting the proposals for absorption is bad. When the petitioner submitted a representation to the fourth respondent on 21.11.2008, the same was replied on 16.12.2008 by the fourth respondent giving reasons. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the order passed by the fourth respondent on 22.10.2008.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition, shall stand closed. __________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J 14.06.2017 pln