Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2006

The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as Secondary Grade Teacher in the third respondent school with effect from 18-06-1970. She obtained B.Ed. degree in the year 1979, M.A. in english and social studies in 1990, and also passed account test for the post of Head Master in 1992. Further, she also passed M.A. literature in English. It is also asserted that she was teaching the high school section of the school i.e., 8th, 9th, and 10th classes all through right from 1982 onwards. The services of the petitioner were also appreciated by the third respondent and issued certificates of appreciation time and again. When one Smt. Sakina Banu retired on 01-04-1991, she claimed her promotion to the post of Senior Assistant in Humanities. However, the third respondent arbitrarily and illegally with ulterior motive promoted the respondent No.4 denying the promotion to the petitioner. The said respondent No.4 was junior to the petitioner and appointed only in the year

1972. The said promotion was made without approval of the Government and also while preparing the seniority list the petitioner objected for the promotion of the respondent No.4. Her proposal was also, however, sent to the authorities concerned after retirement of one A.Venkat Narayan (English, Social Studies) on 24-04-1992. But, no action was taken against the said proposal sent by the management, though five years elapsed. When she approached the D.E.Os. office, it was said that the records were burnt in a fire accident. Therefore, the petitioner made representations again and ultimately the impugned proceedings dated 16-01-1998 were passed. While the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent Smt. Amboja Rajagopal took voluntary retirement on 31-01-1999 and another school teacher Smt. Annapurna Devi, who was shown above the petitioner in the seniority list, also took voluntary retirement somewhere in the month of February 2000. In spite of that, the case of the petitioner was not considered for being promoted to the post of School Assistant (Social Studies), though several representations are filed by her. Now, it is stated that ultimately the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31- 05-2003 without being promoted to the post of School Assistant as per her eligibility. Hence, this Writ Petition.

A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the Government on behalf of the first and second respondent and on behalf of the third respondent a separate counter- affidavit has been filed, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and sought dismissal of the writ petition. However, it is asserted by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that Smt. Annapurna SGT, M.A., M.Ed. (Hum.) and petitioner in W.P.No.27373 of 1997 is senior to Qamar Sultana, SGT M.A., M.Ed., (Hum.). As such, the promotion of Smt. Annapurna, SGT, (Hum.) had to be considered by the respondent No.3 to the school Assistant (Hum.) before the petitioner-Smt. Qamer Sultana and other juniors as per the Hon’ble Court orders issued earlier. It is also further asserted that Smt. Rama Devi, SGT, having qualifications of B.Sc. (MPC), and B.Ed. is eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Mathematics) in the existing post and the same has to be considered by the respondent No.3.

Almost the same stand was taken by the respondent No.3-management in its counter-affidavit.

I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also gone through the material made available on record. As seen from the above, admittedly, the petitioner obtained B.Ed. only in 1979, whereas fourth respondent passed B.Ed. even before 01-06-1977 that is the reason why the fourth respondent though she was junior in service, adjusted in the upgraded post and thus became senior to the petitioner. Even Smt. Annuapurna Devi was senior in the cadre of S.G.B.T. Be that as it may, Ms.Amboja Rajagopal-the fourth respondent herein admittedly retired from service on 31-01-1999 and even if assuming that Smt. Annapurna Devi was promoted the said vacancy, Smt. Annapurna Devi also took voluntary retirement in February 2000. At last, there was no hurdle in the way of third respondent in considering promotion of the petitioner for the post of Senior Assistant after February 2000. Of course, it is asserted in the counter filed by the respondents 1 and 2 that the first vacancy caused would go to the Science graduate and second vacancy would go to the graduate in Natural Sciences and the third vacancy would go to the graduate in Humanities. It is for the third respondent to look into this and pass appropriate orders. This exercise ought to have been done by the third respondent as soon as Smt. Annapurna Devi offered voluntary retirement in the month of February 2000, but such an exercise was not done by the third respondent. If any exercise has been done to fill up the vacancy caused due to voluntary retirement of Smt. Annapurna Devi in the month of Feburary, 2000, probably the case of the petitioner would have been considered.

In view of the above, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner against the vacancy caused due to the voluntary retirement taken by Ms. Amboja Rajagopal and consequently voluntary retirement taken by Smt. Annapurna Devi while she was in the cadre of School Assistant in the SGBT as to the feasibility of considering the case of the petitioner for being promoted to the post of School Assistant in Humanities, as per the vacancy position at that juncture, as per the procedure invoked and pass appropriate orders as per law and thereafter decide the pension etc., of the petitioner, since she has retired from service with effect from 31- 05-2003, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.