The High Court · 2025

.....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.5 lN W.P petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orcler granted o 09.01.2020 in w.P.No. 629 2020 and dismiss the Writ petition in the interest of justice. t.A.NO :3 OF 2020 Between G.Kishan, S/o G.Narasimulu, aged 45 years R/o 1-3-285, Near Bus Depot Boyawada, Nirmal, Telangana. ..,.PETITIONER i I I I AND

1. Prince English Medium High School, Gajulpet, Nirmal District, represented by its Corresfiondent, Murad Ali Farishta, Gajulapet, Nirmal, Telangana - 504 106.

2. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department at Secretariat, Hyderabad-

3. The commissioner of School Education, state of Telangana at Hyderabad. 4. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Warangal' 5. The District Educational Officer, at Nirmal, Nirmal District' ....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders passed in w.P.No. 629 of 2020 dt. 09-01-2020 and dismiss the writ petition in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI GOURARAM RAJASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI The Court made the following ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA (-, WRIT PETITION No. 629 oF 202() ORDER: Calling in question the proceedings dated 3O.12.2OL9 in Memo No. 8617/SE Genl-212019 on the file of thelstrespondeht-stateinitsSchoolEducationDepartment and proceedings dated 3l.l2.2}lg in Rc'No' 9a3lB2iPvrl2Ol9 on the file of the 4d' respondent - District Educational Ofliccr at Nirmal, petitioner is before this Court' The case of petitioner - institution is that it was 2. established in 1983 employing 43 persons and except for the 5th respondent, no other empioyee has raised any grievanc'e belore any competent authority or this Court' It is stated, the Sfr respondent was appointed as a Physical Education Teacher on contract basis in tu'o spells till 3o.o4.2olgandthereafter,hedidnotexpressrvillingnessto continuefortheacademicyear2Olg-2O2O;consequently'he was informed that his services would not be contrnuecl and he was requested to collect his salary for April 2O 19 and settlc his Provident Ftrnd. Howevet, on 27 'O5'2O19' the 5'h respondent visited school, created nuisance and threatenecl petitioner I I institution stating that he would ensure its closure. A poiice complaint was iodged on 28.5.2O19 at P.S. Nirmal in that regard and police counselled the 5d respondenr. Subsequently, he Submitted resignation letter on 04.06.2019 citing personal reasons. Despite, the 56 respondent hled an Appeal on OT .O7 .2OI9 before the 4e respondent, claiming that his discontinuation was in violation of Sections 79 and 83 of the A.P. Education Act. Thereafter, he approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 15629 of 2019, making the lst respondent a parff. This Court disposed of the said Writ petition at the admission stage, directing the 5d, respondent to file a fresh Appeal before the 1"t respondent within a s,eek and directing the 1"t respondent to pass orders u,ithin eight rveeks. When the Appeal was not disposed of, the sth responcient liled Contempt Case No. 1664 of 2O19, wherein on receiving the notice, the lst respondent called petitioner and othcrs to appea. before them on 30-1,2.2019 at BRKR Bhavan, Hyderabad. petitioner submitted rvritten submissions highlighting that the sth respondent resigned, hence, he could not be reinstated. However, on the same da]', the 1', responde nt issued proceedings in Miemo No. 8617/SE.Genl.2/2019, dated I -l 1

30.12.2019, directing the 4d respondent to consider the request ol the 5& respondent to continue his services as Physical trducation Teacher for 11 months' Consequently' on 31.12.2otg, the 4n respondent issued proceedings in Rc' No' 9831Fi21pvt12019, directing petitioner to reinstate the sth respondent for 1 1 months and submit a compliance report by o 1.o 1.2020. Petitioner contends that these proceedings i'l'ere issued solely to avoid contempt proceedings and were not based on merits of the case- The Contempt Case was closed on O3.O1.2O2O upon representation that order, ' had been implemented. However, the impugned orders have caused issues for the petitioner institution The sth having voluntarily resigned, cannot clairrt signilicant respondent, reinstatement; further, his past conduct, including tardiness and engagement in coaching for police iecruitment candidates' demonstrates his unsuitability for the position' Additionally' the institution has already appointed two Physical Education Teachers, P. (iovind and T. Suresh, who are currently serving' It is therefore. contended that the Sth respondent is acting u'ith mala fide intcntion to disrupt the institution' The impugned I ) l orders were passed without considering petitioner's contentions or the report submitted by the 4th respondent. The Sth respondent filed the counter stating that

3. initially, the school was managed by Sri Murad All Farishta, Principal-cum-Correspondent and management was smooth, however, situation changed when Principal's son, Mr. Raheem Ali began to oversee the administration. According to him, Mr. Ali forced teachers to sign agreements preventing them from approaching the court, forming a union, or taking legal action, along with signing resignation letters. Therefore, thel' signed documents under duress, fearing termination and continued their services for 2Ol7-18 and 2O18-19 academic vears. It is further stated that in 2019 , the 1st respondent insisted on another agreement requiring the 5th respondent to resign from their position in the next academic year. Though this respondent refused to sign, order dated O4.O5.2019 was passed discontinuing their sen'ices. It is stated, they had served for 17 years and that signing such agreements annually was arbitrary and unnecessary. While referring to the Telangana Education Act, 7982, particularly Section 79, rvhich mandates that no teacher can be dismissed, removed, or reduced in rank ) -.r4€ t/ _/ ,,/ without an inquiry and approval from the competent authority, it is contended that termination was in violation of these provisions, as no inquiry was conducted, and no permission was sought lrorn the competent authoritlr. Tht,- 5th respondent contends that following the direction in Writ Petition No. 15629 of 2Ol9, they hled statutory Appeal before rhe 2"d respondent, u,ho passed a consent order but petitioncr did not implement the same, instead, filed the current Writ Petition. They accuse petitioner of perjury. lt is asserted that he was appointed as a permanent Physical Education Teacher ot 12.06.2002 and served till O4.O5.2Oi9. He denied the accusation of creating nuisance or misconduct and disputes the claim that they submitted a resignation letter on O4.O6.2O 19. He asserts that these allegations were fabricated by petitioner to avoid compliance with legal provisions. It is emphasized that termination order was passed without conducting any inquiry or obtaining prior permission from the competent authority, as required by Section 79.

4. ()n behalf of Respondents 1 to 3, it is stated in their collnter that pursuant to the directions in Writ Petition No. 15629 of 20 19, the Sth respondent submitted Appeal on ) 6

05.08.2019 to the District Educational Officer, Nirmal requesting that his services be reinstated. The Correspondent of petitioner School submitted a report stating that the 5th respondent had been appointed temporarily for a singie academic year, with a contract that expired on 30.O4.2019. The management had served him notice on O4.O5.2O19 to collcct his pending salary and Provident Fund and the 5th respondent submitted resignation on 04.06.2019. The management also noted that the 5e respondent refused to sign an agreement for 2Olg-2O academic year. During the hearing, it u'as disclosed that the 5e respondent had been forcefully made'to submit his resignation and the management had acted arbitrarily. Consequentiy, the lst respondent issued the impugned memo dated 30.12.2019 instructing the school management to continue his services as a Physical Education Teacher at Prince High Schooi with immediate effect. Further, thc District Educational Ofhcer in their proceedings dated 31.12.2019, instructed the Correspondent of Prince High School to take the Stl, respondent back into sen'ice with immediate effect., piacing him under close observation for the next 11 months. During this period, the management was to monitor his bchaviour and II /"" 1 conduct and to take appropriate action according to the law if necessary. It is stated that proceedings issued by them were in accordance witlr lar,,", and the directives issued by this Court. 5. Petjtioner filed reply ro the affidavit of the Sft respondent stating that the sth respondent,s previous appointment letter for the academic year 201g-19 clearly stated that his appointment was on contract basis for l1 months, from O1.06.2018 to .10.O4.2O19. After the contract period expired, his temporary appointment automatically ended. While respondent u,as continued during the contract period, his service was found to be unsatisfactory. When asked to sign a new agreement for 2Ol9-2O, the Sft respondent relused to offer his services, r.r'hich led to issuance of letter dated 04.O5.2O 19, requesting the Sth respondent to collect salary for the month of April 20 19 . The Sth respondent,s claim that this letter constitutes a termination is incorrect. It is stated that this Court while issuing notice, suspended the proceedings dated 30.12.2019 and 31. 12.2O1g passed by Respondents 3 and 4 respectively. Due to COVID_19 pandemic, all r:ducational institutions, including petitioner,s, were closed during 2Ol9-2O academic year, and the schooi \ \ \ I I 3 operated with limited staff for only two months. Even for the current academic year, school continues to operate u'ith only four teachers taking on line classes- Given this situation, there was no need for Physical Education Teacher- The Respondent's counter-claim that the 1st respondent issued a consent order to employ him for 1 1 months is incorrect. A plain reading of the order does noa support such a claim. The 5ft respondent, at no point of time, came with a proposal expressing his willingness to work in petitioner's institution, therefore, the question ol continuing him is not possible. He approached the Appellate Authority with the intention of tarnishing' institution's reputation. In his counter also, the Sfi respondent mentioned several teachers who were allegedly removed from service, which is factually incorrect, as no such complaints have been made b.v-- any teacher to date. Petitioner submits copies of respondent's contract agreements lbr the previous academic years, which he signed and worked under force. A copy of the identicai tcmporary agreement for 20 l9-2O2O academic year was also provided to the Respondent for acceptance' Since he lailed to sign the agreement, he was not re-employed by the institution' Therefore, petitioner's submission remains that the 5th 1) r respondent's claims and contentions are baseless and the facts established in the records and agreements support the petitioner's position. It is further stated that the 5d respondent was employed '"vith J.V.N.R Vidyaniketan High School E.M, Shantinagar, Nirmal and Mandal, during the period from 14.06.2022 ro 12.oa.2023, for duration of 14 months; thereafter, vr.ith Akshara High School, Kankapur, Laxmanchanpa Mandal & Nirmal District.

6. Heard Sri T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Gouraram Rajashekar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader- for School Education ancl Sri Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the stl' respondent. Upon hearing the arguments and examining the

7. pleadings of all the parties, it is to be seen that the 5fi respondent rvzls appointed purely on contract basis and he entered into agrcement for temporary appointment lor two academic years. For 2Ol9-2O, according to petitioner, the 5n respondent has not signed the agreement and submitted resignation on O4.O6.2O19, dulv collecting PF details and salary. irJ Petitioner also filed copy of rhe letrer dared O4.O5.2O19 sent to the Sth respondent stating as per the agreement signed by him for the academic ,year 2AB- D , his services ended on 3O.O4.2O19; as he rejected to give willingness to work for the next academic year i.e. 2O19-2O, his services n'ould not be continued the next academic year. Though the 5e respondent submits that resignation was obtained by coercion, he did not fiIe a scrap of paper to prove the same. Further, petitioner in the report submitted to the District Educational Officer dated

09.12.2019, pursuant to the direction given in the impugned order dated 31 .12"2019, narrated as to how the 5e respondent served the institution, how he provoked the students against the management for r.vhich the mar-ragement also lodged a police complaint, etcerera. Therefore, in view of the fact that the appointment of the 5th respondent is purely on contract basis for i 1 months and also in view of the fact that now he has been working in Akshara High School, Kankapur, Nirmai District, and since the government has no authority to direct petitioner institution to continue the 5m respondent for 11 more months, subject to his good behaviour and conduct, this Court is of the opinion that the irnpugned orders deserves to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is aliowed, setting aside the ordcrs dated 30.12.2019 and 31.12.2O19 passed bv Respondents 1 and 4 respectively. No costs.

9. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any sha1l stand clo sed. /TTRUE COPY// sD/- T'TIRUMALA qEf-l ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S ON OFFICER \ To The Principal Secretary, School Education Department at Secretariat' State of Hf tXiliS:[].,0"?'3,o31n"", Ed ucatio n, state or rer ansa na at Hyd erabad The Reqional Joint Director oGchool Education'.Warangal iiiE iilii"i?olrcational off icer' at Nirmal' Nirmal District Two ccs to GP FoR scHdbl';;ucniior'r Hish cou( for the state of Telanqana at H'Tderabad' [oUT1 one Cc to sRl GouRAnnia"niLnsHEKAR REDDY' Advocate [oPuc] one cc to SRI PRATAp rtr'innvnu sANGHI' Advocate (oPUc) Two CD CoPies 't.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6. 7_ 8. SA A I I 1 HE STATe ( o 1l rtB zffi '\ a OE .,ipATC,Yl €-1) HIGH COURT DATED:041021?J25 ORDER WP.No.629 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. GA 6#-