High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The Govdrnment of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 3 4 The Commissioner and Director of School Educalion, Telangana, Hyderabad The Regional Director of School Education, Hyderabad, Telangana. ih" Di.tri"t Educational Officer, Hyderabad District, Hyderabacl 7 5 Nooria A_rabia Oriental High School, (Government Recognized and, Aided), Eep by iG Correspondent / Secretary, 18-13-124, NoorfMaskan, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad-S. ...RESPONDENTS

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of [\4andamus, declaring the action of the respondents .1 to 4 in not according approval for absorption of the petitioners to the grant in aid posts in the Sth respondent school on untenable grounds as being arbitrary, illegal, unjustified, contrary to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and the decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in 1996(3) ALD 638, discriminatory and in violation of the provisions of the Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of lndia and hold. that the petitioners are deemed to have been absorbed as Teachers in the grant-in-aid posts in the 5th respondent school with all consequential benefits including arrears at par, increments etc., dehors the Memo No. 1O6Sg/pF_ 1lA1l20O1 , dated 11-12-2008 issued by the 1'r respondent.

1.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 28881 0F 2014) 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 direct the respoidents to consider the case of the petitioners for absorption against grant in aid posts in the 5th respondent school keeping in on the strength of and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLp (Civil) No.9541 of 2OO7 dated 6-9-2011. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel for the Sespondent Nos.1 to 4: Gp FOR SERVTCES I Counsel for the Respondent No.S: SRI p. BHAVANA RAO, The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA - WRIT PETITION No. 23042 OF 2Ol4 - ORDER: This Writ Petition is instituted seeking a direction to Respondents 1 to 4 to absorb petitioners as teachers in grant- in aid posts in the 5d' respondent school with all consequenLial benefits. The case of petitioners is that petitioners 1 to 5 2. joined the sen'ice of the 5m respondent aided school . as Assistant Teachers and the 6m respondent as Attender on O2.O7 .2OO I , however, the request of the management for absorpticn of petitioners u,orking rn un-aided post into grant in aid posts r.r,as rejected in view of the ban orders issued in Memo dated 20. lO .2OO4 .

3. Heard Sri D. Linga Rao,. learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Services-l and Sri P. Bhavana Rao, learned counsel for the 5th respondent. After arguing the matter at length, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goaemment ol Andhra Pro,desh \ 1 :.,. v. Sri Seuq.das Vldhyamandir High Schoo and A.V.M. High School a. Stcte of Telangana2.

4. Learned counsel for petitioneis contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Srt Seuadors Vidhgamandir High Schoolo's case (supra) deall with the nature o[ the ban on recruitment imposed by the government i.e. r,r.hether it was retrospective and would operate agains[ recn-litment processes which had alread5, been initiated. As the ban rv;rs imposed by the government only under Memo dated 20. 10.2OO4,, the Supreme Court held that the said ban wirs not given retrospective effect and would therefore, not have application to recruitment processes which had already br:en initiated. Following the said law, in A.V.M. High School's ccrse (supra), the High Court for the State of Telangana ar-rd Andhra Pradesh observed that'as matters stand, the only ground lor rejection of petltioner schools' request for grant in aid, as is cvident from a plain reading of the impugned memo dated 25.O1.rr011, was the issue of the ban order being sub-judice before the Court. As that case has culminated in a clear finding that the s:rid ban order ' uorrloy sln ozolscy 'zoro1:; sr.n se: ,/ ) would have no retrospective operation, the impugned memo is set aside'

5. In the instant case, since petitioners were appointed prior to imposing ban, as per the law laid down supra, the said ban u,ill not have retrospec[ive effect and therefore, would not have application to recruitment processes which had already been initiated. Further, in vieu,of the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gi v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhis w,hcrcin it has been held that \r.hen a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity just be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented b1, fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or oLherwise. Othcrwisc, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out,, the ground taken by Respondents 1 to 4 that the 5rh respondent school did not follow the procedure laid do,"vn in G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated 01.01.1994, cannot be accepted since the same was not taken in the impugned memo. Further, Respondents 1 to 4 in their ' nrR 1978 sc 85 r( l) 1 counter also admitted that the ban orders arc prospe< tivc in opcration.

6. Yet another contention raised b-v Rcspondents I lo 4 in thcir counter is that petitioners at present are not 'a'orking in the said school, based on the report submitted bv the Deputy trducational Officer, Bandiaguda, and grant-in aid is meant for management; if there is any grievance, it is for thc management to seek appropriate remedies and petitioners have no locus to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Articlc 226 of thc Constitution. The said contention was denied b-\ th;'5'h respondent stating that report is contrary to the rcports datcd O9.O4.2008 and 13.06.2008 of the Deputy Educarional Officer and the Director of School Education and thc counter' of Respondents i to 4 is conspicuously silent about the first report submitted by the DEO and there is no denial of the' fact that the department has not rejected the proposals sent by the management u,ithin the time stipulated o[ three months, hence, in view of the provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 1, dated O 1.0 i. 1994, their appointments are deemed to have been approved and subsequent ban cannot operate against earlier appointments. ) Though petitioners in their individual capacity approached the Court, the 5h respondent school in their counter, supported the case of petitioners. For the forcgoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Petition deserves to be allowed

7. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. The respondent authorities shall consider thc case of petitioners for absorption as teachers in grant-in-aid posts in the Sth respondent school with all conscqucntial benefils. No costs. Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand 8 closed. //TRUE COPY// SD S /. L. LAKSHMI BABU STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER retariat, The , Telangana, HYderabad' To, 2 J 4 6 7 1 The Principal Secretary' Education Department' HYderabad' "iTelansJna, d"r";il;;t The Commissioner and Director of School Educa tion The Regional Director of School Education' Hyderabad' Telangana' TheDistiictEducationalofficer,HyderabadDistrict,Hyderabad. ISS.,: :;H:H?[1"":U,??T:'fi 11h[::i:'t:?3:ig]".il3i''l]ffif "'' bandlaguda, HYderabad-5' One CC to Sri D. Linga Rao' Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP for Services l' High Court for the State of Telangana' at Hyderabad [OUT] One CC to Sri P' Bhavana Rao' AdvocatetOPucl

9. Two CD CoPies TJ GJP A cA\" I l i l l HIGH COURT DATED:1 110212025 ORDER WP.No.23042 of 20'14 ( q o,J 1t^ sTA r€ ( ? a 20 llAI 2[6 t ,sparcH a ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS of,i'"*