High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the Petitioner for admiss,on and absorption in grant-in-ard post inspite of the recommendation made by the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent vide Lr. No. 68401E412013, dated 27 -07 -2013 as illegal and contrary to law and against Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of lndia and in consequence thereof, direct the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioner herein by approving the post in grant-in-aid from the date of recommendation made by the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent with all consequential benefits by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ. IANO: 1OF2 023 Petition unde;r section 151 cpc praying that in the circr.rrnstances stated in the affidavit frred in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct the Respondents to pay sarary to the petitioner herein .n par with other simrlarly situated persons rn grant-in-ard post, pending drsposa of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.V.NARASIMHA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PE ON No.7 442 ot o23 ORD ER: Heard Sri V.V. Narasimha Rao, learned counset appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 4. 2 The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: "...to declare the action of the Respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for admission and absorption in grant-in-aid post inspite of the recommendation made by the 3.d Respondent to the 2nd Respondent vide Lr. No. 6B4O/E4/2013, dated 27-O7-2OL3 as illegal and contrary to law and against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in consequence thereof direct the Respondents to pay salary to the petitioner herein by approving the post in grant-in-aid from the date oF recommendation made by the 3.d Respondent to the 2nd Respondent with all consequential benefits by issuing Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ and pass...,,.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was initially appointed as SGT in the 4th respondent school on

07.10.2003. The petitioner has been working from 2003 and is 2 - SN, J wP 7142 2023 eligible to t,e appointed as SGT in the 4th respondr:nt School in grant-in-aid category but the same is not being considered by respondent No.2, consequenfly the petitioner had been deprived of equal pa/ on par with other SGTs, who are working in the regular schrrols. Owing to inaction on the part of the 2nd respondent in not admitting and absorbing the post of the petitioner in grant-in-aid, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD 4, The relevant portion of the proceedings Lr.No. 644/E4/2OL3, dated 2t.O7.2OtZ of the respondent No.3 addressed to the respondent No.2 is extracted hereunder: "-l-he Management of the school has filerJ Writ Petition in the Hon,ble Court vide W.p. No. 1g1.44 of 2013 to settle the long pending issue of sanctioning of Grant-In-Aid for all eligible posts with immediate r:ffect. -Ihe following teachers were approved by the compet,3nt a uthority. Name of the Teacher Cadre st. No. 1 2 J 4 5 Mrs. K. Kan a Kumari Mr. K. Srikanth Smt. G. Sucharita P. Ra a Narsu P. Madhusudan Rao HPT-II TPT_II SGT SGT SGT Date of appointment 07- 10-2003 0 7.10.200:t 07.10.200:l 03. 11.20Cr3 77.lt.20c3 3 SN, J w 1442 2023 The above approved appointments are made prior to the ban dated i.e. 20.10.2004 are eligible for admission into Grant-In-Aid, which is supported by the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 6.9.2O11 in SLP No.954tl2OO7". Further, I submit that as per the interim orders in W.P.M.P. No. t2425/2OO2 in W.P. No. LOL23{2OO3, this office was submitted the proposals for approval of appointments in unaided into aided posts vide under reference 1't cited for the above 5 posts. In view of the above, I am submitting herewith the proposals for unaided to aided posts submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Amberpet Mandal for further course of action".

5. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner's name is mentioned at Serial Number 3 in the approval list recommended by respondent No.3 to .respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.6B40/E4/20L3, dated 27.07.2013 and it is specifically stated in the said approval list recommended by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 that appointment oF petitioner along with four others had been made prior to ban dated 20.10.2004 and therefore, the petitioner is eligible for admission into Grant-In- Aid, which is supported by the Supreme Court judgment dated

06.09.2011 in SLP No. 954U2O07. 4 SN, J - wP 't442 202) 6. A bare perusal of the proceedlngs dated 27.07.20L3 (referred tc and extracted above), further clearly indi,:ates that as per the intr:rim orders in W.P.M.P. No. 12425/2002 in W.P. No. 10123/2003 proposal's had been submitted by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 for approval of appointments tn unaided into aided posts in respect of five posts which includes the post of the petitioner in the category of SGT fronr the date of appointment 07.10.2003 vide this office Lr.Rc.No.4O65/C7/2005, dated 18.121.2003.

7. Counter affidavit had been filed on behalf of th€ respondent No.3 and at para No.9 it is clearly admitted that there had been a recommendation in Favour of the petitioner ylde Proceedings dated 27 .0'7 .2013 of the 3'd respondent addressed to the 2nd respondent herein and the said issue [s being dealt separately by the departrnent in accordance to law. The relevant para Nos.5, 6 and 9 of the (:ounter affidavit are extracted hereunder '5. It is submitted that the Sri Sai Vignana Vardhini Vidhyalayam Upper Primary School (English Medium) submitted proposals for admission of post into C;rant in aid during 2003. The Government have convent:rJ High Level Committee and as per the recommendations of the HiEh Level Committee have sanctioned Grant in aid posts to the eligible (30) schools in G.O.Ms.No, 143, 5 SN, J wP 7442 202) Edn. (PS.2) Dept., dated 16.12.2003. Out of the said (30) schools, (1) post of School Assistant was sanctioned to the Sri Sai Vignana Vardhini Vidhyalam Upper Primary School (English Medium) and the same has been implemented and one teacher approved in the aided post is working.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as unaided by the management as Secondary Grade Teacher and there is no sanctioned aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the said school' It is already held by the Hon'ble Courts, the appointments made and the individuals continued to be considered only if they are appointed against a sanctioned post' In the instant case, there is no sanctioned aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher in the said school"' "9. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted with regard to the proposal for admission into Grant-in- aid of Sri Sai Vignana Vardhini Vidhyalayam Upper Primary School (English Medium) by the 3'd respondent 684OlE4l2Ot3, dated 27.07.20t3. The isb eino dealt seDaratelv bv the with I w deDa rtmentinac rdance t-1.ltlo. 8 Ta lno !n (a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the con iderat ron case, 6 SN, J - wP 1442 2023 (b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government pleader for Services_I, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4, (c) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 in particular para Nos.S, 5 and 9 (referred to and extracted above), (d) The contents of the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.6g4Ol E4/ZOIZ, dated 27.O7.2013, (e) 'Ihe fact that the office of the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad had submitted proposats for approval of appointments in unaided into aided posts for the post of SGT category, who had been appointed on 07.LO.ZOO3 vide letter of the office of the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad Lr.Rc.No.4O6S/C7/2OOS, dated 18.12:.20O3, The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein to consider the case of the petitioner for admission into Grant_f n_Aid post as per the recommendation made by the 3'd respondent to the 7 SN, J wP 't442 2023 respondent No.2 vide Lr.No.584OlE4l2OL3, dated

27.O7.2Ot3 (referred to and extracted above), and as per the proposal submitted by the office of the District Educational Officer, Hyderabad Distract for approval of petitioner's post in the category of SGT into Grant-In-Aid, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass appropriate orders duly considering the case of the petitioner for admission and absorption in grant-in-aid post and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also s,tand. closed. SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 PSK, I]S The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education, Secretariat Buildinq, Saifabad, Hyderabad, State of Telangana. The Cohmissroner and Director of School Education, State of Telangana, Saifabad. Hvderabad. The District'Educational Officer, Hyderabad. The Correspondent, Sri Sai Vignana Vardhani Vidyalayam, Turab Nagar, Amberoet. Hvderabad - 500 013. one cb to shl v.v.NARASIMHA RAO, Advocate toPUCl Two CCs to GP FOR SERVICES-|, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies w HIGH COURT DATED:1710312025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.7442 of 2023 ( '(. :) (..) 'r.., 1HE SrT4 15 2 E tlAq 2m 3 ,i : '' ,'. :.'' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 't(