Further, the Honble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School

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 issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. Rc.No. 5791lD3lABS|2018, dated 15-9-2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash or set-aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the constitution of lndia and consequently seLaside the same and hold that the petitioners are entitled for absorption into grant-in-aid vacancies with effect from the date on which the grant-in-aid posts have arisen with all consequential benefits. l=--7 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 suspend the operation of the impugned Proc. Rc.No. 5791/D3/ABS/2018, dated 15-9-20 18 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption into granlin-aid posts existing in the 5th respondent lnstitution, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D.BALA KISHAN RAO Gounsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I W.P.NO: 9527 OF 2019 Between: Assistant, V.V Boys High School, Jambagh, Hyderabad.

1. Avinash Keskar, S/o. Vidyasagar Keskar, aged About 43 years, Record 2. P.Sadanand, Sio. Sri P.Pullaiah, aged about 54 years, Office Subordinate, 3 Sm! W.Bharathi, D/o. Nagu Rao, aged About 50 years, Sweeper, V.V. Boys VV. Boys High School, Jambagh, Hyderabad. High school' Jambagh' Hyderabad' ...pETrroNERS AND Education Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

1. The State of Telangana, represented by its. Principal Secretary, School 2. The Commissioner of School Education, State of Telangana, Hyderabad. 3. The District Educational Officer, Hyderabad Hyderabad-District. 4. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 5. The Secretary and Correspondent, V.V. Boys High School, Waman Naik Marg' Putli Bowli' Hyderabad ...RES'.NDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Proc. Rc.No. 5791l}3lAgStzO18, dated 15-9-2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash or set-aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and subversive of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set-aside the same and hold that the petitioners are entitled for absorption into grant-in-aid vacancies with effect from the date on which the granlin-aid posts have arisen with all consequential benefits. 1A NO: 1 OF 2019 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 suspend the operation of the impugned Proc.Rc.No.5791lD3lABS|2018, dated 15- 9-2018 issued by the 3rd respondent and direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption into grant-in-aid posts existing in the 5th respondent lnstitution, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI O.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES-I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITI ON Nos.944O and 95.27 of2Ol9 coMMON ORDE R: The issue in these writ petitions being similar' they are being disposed ol by way of this common order' For reference' the facts contained ir.r the W.P.No.9527 of 2Ol9 are taken'

2. The 1'r pelltioner was appointed as Record Assistant in the Sth respondent-\/.V.Boys High School, Hyderabad, on 25'06'2OO4; the 2"d petitioner was appointed as Office Sub-Ordirlate on 05.07.1993; ar-rrl the 3'd petitioner was appointed as Swt:eper on 08.03.199O. Thc'ir appointment was against the vacancies on account of retirement of the previous incumbents in those posts' It is their case that they have been working in the Sth respondent- Schooi for over 15 1'ears in the sanctioned posts, and their appointment in t he unaided posts does not require approval from the Governmen t. ald there are clear aided vacancies against which they can be accommodated, and their case is covered under G.O.Ms.No.23, Minorities Welfare (M&R) Department, dated

10.03.1999. It is their grievance that the 5th respondent-School submitted proposals uide letter dated 25'O6'2O18 to the 3'd respondent the District Educational officer, for the absorption of ,/ I t 2 the petitioners from unaided . to aided posts, however, the proposals were returned uide proceedings dated 15.09.2018 on the ground that there is a general ban on recruitment, and no new grant-in-aid posts would be created and the existing once would also not be frlled up except for which permission was granted by the Government. Challenging the proceedings dated

15.09.2018 issued by the 3.d respondent, as illegal and arbitrary, the petitioners hled this writ petition.

3. Heard Sri D.Balakishan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; and learned Government Pleader for Services-I. Perused the record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while making submissions on the lines of the writ affidavit contends that the appointment of petitioners was prior to the issuance of Government Memo bearing No.12080/COSCI A2l2004-4, dated 2O.LO.2OO4 whereunder ban was imposed, and the Memo was prospective in nature, i.e., effective from the date of issuance. Further, this Court had, in Netaji Memorial Educatlonal Society as. The haentment oJ Andhra Prad.eshl, set aside the G.O. by directing -the respondents to accord permission to the ' [.P.No.9503 ( of 2005 and batch, dated 30.o7 .2013 \ ,l ;:.#-rP+'--7/ 3 petitioner-institution therein to hll up the grant-in-aid vacancies' It is contenderl that the similarly situated persons who worked for more than 7 years have been absorbed in graat-in-aid posts by proceedings issuecl by the 3'd respondent uide letter No.i5a78/DV lB4 l2OO5, dated 11.01.2005, arid the petitioners herein have put in more than 15 years of service and therefore entitled to the relief of absorption. He also relies on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State oJ Kafiadtaka os Umd Devt2 in support of his contenrions. Learned Government Pleader, based on the counter affidavit 5. of the Jrrr 1ssp1lnclsnt, would inter alia submit that the 5th respondent School has not obtained permission from the authorities for appointing the petitioners, artd thel have not been appointed against sanctioned posts. It is contended th at the proposals sent br the Srh respondent, for absorption of petitioners in the aided var:ancies, have been returned in vieu' of the ban under Governmt:nt Memo dated 20.lO.2OO4- It is hlrther contended that the 5th respondent is not al instrumentality of the State to seek parity as per the ratio in Uma Devi's case and unless there is a policy for absorption of private teachers into aided vacanctes. petitioners cannot seek absorption; and , (2006) 4 SCC 1 4 therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 3'd respondent dated

15.09.2018 does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court.

6. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the Experience Certificate issued by the 5th respondent-school in respect of the petitioners would show that the l"t petitioner was appointed in June, 2OO4 , 2"4 petitioner in July, 1993, and the Jra petitioner in March, 1990.

7. Further, the Honble Supreme Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School3, held as follows: "18. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the view that no interference is called for with the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court. There is no dispute that the Memo dated 20-10-2004, imposing a ban on recruitment to grant-in-aid posts was issued after the sGhools in question had b€en given permission by the State authorities to fill up the vacant posts in the schools being managed and run by the writ petitioneG, who are the respondents in these special leave petitions. There is also no dispute that the said memo was not given retrospective effect so as to negate the approval already given for filing up the grant'in-aid posts- The State Govemment and its authorities could not, therefore, contend that the rationalization process which had been introduced, would also apply in respect of the private aided schools, where the Process of recruitment had already been commenced pursuant to the approval granted earlier-" 3 AIR1NLINE 20 1 1 SC 381 ! 5 It is also relevant to refer to Gulolrn Jeelani as The 8. Goaernment o;f Telanganaa, which is a case where certain compassionate appointments were made prior to impositiotr of the banonrecruitment.ThisCourt,whilea-llowingthewritpetition by order dated 15.1I.2022, referred to the judginent in Sevadas Vidyamandir (supra|, held at paragraph l5 as follows: "15. The ground raised by the learned Government Pleader for Services - ll that prior approval should be obtained as per Rule 12 ot the Andhra Pradesh Education lnstitution Rules 1993 is unsustainable' Even in W'P' Nos.15621 of 2OO7 and 2'1938 of 2012, apPointments were made before approval and prior to imposition of ban and while approval process was pending, ban came to be imposed. The Petitioner is also similarly situated as that of the petitioners in the afore-referred writ petitions' Even the ground of delay is without any basis as the Petitioner is no way responsible for the delay. The petitioner had been agitating his right from the date of his appointment and the matter was pending with the authorities concerned and this Court. Thus, argument of the learned Government Pleader is devoid of merits'" g. In the instant case, the appointment of the petitioners was before the imposition of ban on 20.10.2004, and therefore, returning of the proposals for their absorption into aided vacalcies on the ground that there was a ban imposed and that no prior approval was taken prior to appointment cannot be countenanced. There is no material placed to show that the 5tt' respondent-school is required to take prior approval to make appointments in respect of unaided vacancies. The petitioners , I a W.P.No.28768 of 2019. dated 15 11,.2022 I I 6 ( have been serving in unaided vacancies, however, it is their specific unrebutted contention that they have been appointed on account of the vacancies due to retirement of regular incumbents and their candidature was recommended for absorption in aided vacancies in view of their long career of 15 years with the 5tr respondent-School, and also considering their qualification to perform in the posts they are senring in. In that view of the matter, and considering the judgment of the Hon'lole Supreme Court in Sevadas Vidyamandir (supraf, and of this Court in Gulam Jeelani lsupraf , and also the rationale of the judgment in Umadevi (suptaf, this Court Iinds that the prayer of the petitioners is just and equitable.

10. Accordingly, the proceedings dated 15.09.2018 issued by the 3.a respondent is set aside, and the writ petitions are allowed, directing the respondent-authorities to absorb the petitioners in the grant-in-aid vacancies from the date the vacancies have arisen, with all consequential benefits. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above' Witness THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTI^CE SUJOY PAUL' on this wEDNESDAY, rHE NINETE;iii rieibi rvrricH rwo rHousAND AND rwENw FIVE /TTRUE COPY'I SD'. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /. ) SECTIOt.I OFFICER To Secretary, tate Of Te

1.7 he PrinciPal Hvd erabad, s c The The Dist The Regional Joint Director of Schoo I Education , Hyderabad. School Education Department, Secretariat' lang ana State of Telan erabad ommissioner of Schoo rict Educational Officer' Hvderabad Hyd District I Education, 2 3 4 na, Hyderabad .r1#ffi= +t.'# -' .{ ,1 Marg. Putli Bowli, Hvderaoao

5. Tfie Se_cretary and Corre_spondent, V.V. Boys High School, Waman Naik 6 One CC to SRt D BALAXTSHAN RAO, Advocate tOpUCI ' Iyo"*t";l: ?j.ir?* 8. Two CD Copies srnvtcesi, Hitn'cti,it iIlir," -siite or rerangana, at PSK PSK I HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 CC TODAY ( li :r t- It.i \.,1_r b' 4 7' t\, oF TEI .$ \ N\ \\' COMMON ORDER 'n \ WP.Nos.944O AND 9527 of )619.1 :,> ( ( ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS