Bhukya Prasanth Kumar v. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BOYA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE WRIT PETITION No.23005 of 2007 Between: Tejawathu Kommalu, S/o. Bhanya, At Padamati Thanda, A Hamlet of Ponugodu, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District. AND ..... PETITIONER 1 The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Eturunagaram, Warangal District. 3 The Asst. Project Director, ITDA, Eturunagaram, Warangal District. 4 T.Mangya S/o.Not known, Working as GVVK Teacher, Tribal Welfare Primary School, Taty Thanda, Eturunagaram, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Regular Teacher on the par with the 4th Respondent herein as arbitrary, unreasonable and accordingly set aside the order of 2nd Respondent dt. 21-2-2006 in Proceedings No. E2/V/65/2006 and consequently direct the Official Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment as a Teacher on regular basis in any one of the existing vacancies on par with the 4th Respondent in the interest of justice and to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BOYA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE WRIT PETITION No.23095 of 2007 Between: Tejawathu Nanda, S/o. Tejavath Malya, At Bhagya Thanda, H/o. Ponugodu, Gudur Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Department, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Eturunagaram, Warangal District. 3 The Asst. Project Director, ITDA, Eturunagaram, Warangal District. 4 T. Mangya, Working as GVVK Teacher, Tribal Welfare Primary School, Taty Thanda, Eturunagaram, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Regular Teacher on the part with the 4th Respondent herein as arbitrary, unreasonable and accordingly set-aside the order of 2nd respondent dated 21-2-2006 in Proceedings No. E2/V/65/2006 and consequently direct the official respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Teacher on regular basis in any one of the existing vacancies on par with the 4th respondent in the interest of justice and to pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. BOYA RAVINDER REDDY Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE This Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P.Nos.22287, 23005 and 23095 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: In all the three writ petitions, common questions of law and fact arise for consideration and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. It appears, the petitioners were appointed as Community Teachers by the 2nd respondent- Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Agency, Eturunagaram, Warangal District, in the year 1996, and since then they have been working as such. According to them, earlier, when their cases have not been considered for appointment as teachers in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra Schools, they have filed writ petitions before this Court contending that the Community Teachers who have completed five years of service are entitled for such appointment and one T.Mangya (4th respondent herein), a Community Teacher, was also appointed as a regular teacher in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra School. The said writ petitions were disposed of on 04.01.2006 directing the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations made by the petitioners and communicate the same to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the orders. Pursuant thereto, the impugned notices dated 21.02.2006 have been issued by the 2nd respondent stating that the representations submitted by the petitioners seeking to consider their cases for appointment as teachers in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra Schools cannot be considered for the reason that the said posts have to be filled by the Selection Committee headed by the District Collector, basing on the merit in the written and oral tests. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are seniors to the 4th respondent, who has been appointed as regular teacher in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra School, and therefore the petitioners are also entitled for appointment as regular teachers in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra Schools, but the 2nd respondent has arbitrarily rejected their cases, by the impugned notices, stating that he is not competent to appoint teachers in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra Schools. A perusal of the copy of the proceedings dated 16.09.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent, whereby the 4th respondent was appointed as teacher in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra School, would clearly show that the 4th respondent was appointed as Community Teacher with effect from 16.06.1999, whereas the petitioners herein were appointed in the year 1996. Therefore, indisputably, it can be said that the petitioners are seniors to the 4th respondent. Except stating that the 2nd respondent is not competent to appoint teachers in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra Schools, no other reasons have been mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent. I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the 2nd respondent is not acceptable, since the 2nd respondent himself passed the proceedings dated 16.09.2004, appointing the 4th respondent, Community Teacher, as teacher in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra School. Thus, the cases of the petitioners, who appear to be seniors to the 4th respondent, need reconsideration. Under those circumstances, the 2nd respondent is directed to re-consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the posts of teachers in Girijana Vidya Vikas Kendra Schools, on par with the 4th respondent, in any existing or future vacancies, and, if necessary, by seeking the recommendations of the Village Development Committee concerned, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible as per law, and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above directions, the writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. 11th November, 2008. IBL _________​__________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU