Ponnekanti Ramulu v. 1. The State of Telangana

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to set-aside RC NO.121164tA112017 dated 23-5-2019 issued by Respondent No,2 as null and void and consequently direct the Respondents to restore the service of the Petitioner by giving posting at any aided school and to grant all consequential benefits with arrears lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section '15 l 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 Respondents to issue posting orders at any aided schooi, Khammam District, in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl PONNEKANTI RAMULU, PARTY IN PERSON / SRI G BALA RANGAIAH Counsel for Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER ry,/ / HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA trIRIT PETITION No. 16958 OF 2019 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to set aside the proceedings dated 23-05-2019 issued by the 2"d respondent, declaring it null and void. He also seeks directions to restore his services by conhrming his appointment as an Attender in any aided school and to grant all consequential benefits, including arrears. Additionally, petitioner prays for a posting order to be issued in any aided school in Khammam District, as deemed fit by the Hon'ble Court.

2. Petitioner was appointed as an Attender in the 5th respondent School and his services were absorbed into a revised scale of Rs.29O-425, including evasively allowances, through proceedings RC No.1/OPS/ 1985. The petitioner's service register was opened on 30-06-1988 and updated periodically until 01-07-1990. However, following the closure of the said school, petitioner applied to respondenls and higher authorities in the Education Department requesling that his services be considered along with those other employees from aided schools for appointments in government schools. As per the State Government's scheme, employees of closed aided schools were 2 to be absor'bed inlo government services. It is stated, on 23-05 2019, the 2"d re spondent - District Educ ertional Officer rejected the \pplication on the ground that the post of attender (aidcd) u'as rl ot sanctioned by thc government. Peiitioner asserls that this re:rsorr is bascless and unreasonable, as all the records related to his scrvice were submitted by the corresPondent o[ St. John's Uppt r Primary School, Mamillagudem.

3. [ttrtioncr-party-in-person submits that he belongs to Schcdrrlccl Caste (SC) community and rendered uninterruptcr I servlccs lor a long time. Despite -rltiple rel)rcscntati.)rls to thc respondents, his requests for absorption into govcrnrncnt scrvi<:r' have gonc unheeded. Accorrling to hirn, his c'asc is similar to other employees of closed aided schools u,ho wcrc atrsorbcd into government services; faihrre to consicler his Applicertion is discriminatory and unjust.

4. [,r':rrned Government Pleader lor Servrce s - I, basecl on the c:ountcr affidavit filed on behalf of Respondcnts 2 irnd 3, would subrnrt that upon receiving petitioner's Applications, the DE0, Kharnrri:rm, instructed the Mandal Educational C)ificer (ME()), Khanrmam Urban to provide a detaiLrd report on pcl ition c r's r'( qucst, slrpported by documentary evidencc uide Procr:edrngs dated 29 Ol-2O18, to facilirate further Y i t 3 SubsequentlY, the DEO, consideration of the matter Khammam, informed petitioner through Letter dated O}-O2-2O18, that no evidence was found to substan[iate his appointment as an Attender in an aided post at the Sfr respondent school Furthermore' there had been no correspondence from the school regarding petitioner's alleged service in an aided post' The DEO also noted that petitioner submitted his Application after a signihcant lapse of 25 years and he was requested to provide documentary evidence to support his claim, which he failed to furnish' Learned Government Pleader clarifies that according to government norms' no Attender posts were sanctionedforaidedprimaryorupperprimaryschoolsinthe district, inctuding the 5s respondent school and the said posts were sanctioned only for certain aided high schools Therefore' petitioner's claim of working in an aided post as Attender was deemed unsubstantiated lt is also submitted that based on the rcport submitted by the MEO' Khammam Urban' uide Letter No' 22lMFI;OlKrrrm(U)/2018, dated 17-O3-2O18' it was noted that petitioner was appointed as an Attender at a monthly salary of Rs. 6OO/- by the correspondent of St' John's UP School through Proceedings No 2/APP/ 1983' dated 10-06-lgS3 However' 4 appolnLmelr r \\,as not against an aided post, as the post o[ Attende r \ ,:r:i noI sanctioned under gove rnment-iridcd norms. I( is submitted by learned Governmr:nt plcader thal tl're 5th rcspondcnt School was closed in l9g3 by its correspondcrrt ancl the aided teachers emplol.ecl there werc adjusted intl other arcled schools in the district, however, since petitioner \\,irs not emplo-yed in aided post, the question of his adjustment irr r.rnv aiclcd school does not arise. F-urther, learned Govcrnmcr.rr l)k::rcler s,bmits that this Writ petitio, is liable to be clismissert on thc grounds of delay and laches ils petitioner approached rhis court after an inexplicabre ancr inordinate delav of 25 i cirrs since the closure of the school. This delay undermincs rltc rrrainr;rinability of the Writ petition as per the esta blishccl .jr rclir.i:r I prt:r:erle nts.

5. [. pon pcrusal of the pleadings and submissions made b-v ltoth the parties, the primary contention of respondents is that no Attcnder post was sanctionecl under the grant in aid s, ltt.mc for primary or upper primary schools in the district. Whcr,'zrs, petitioncr slates that he was appointed as Attender b-t tlrc Correspondent of the 5rh respondent - Upper Primary Sch..i ancr his service register was marnt.ained and updated till o I 07 L9c)0, corroborating his clairn of having 5 rendered uninterrupted services until school's closure in 1993' He had drawn attention of this Court to several representations said to have been issued by him, commencing lrom 30 l2'2O17 tlll 2g.1O.2O22 stating that he has bcen roaming around the District Educational Ofhcer who asked him to bring service records, hence, he submitted service record maintained by the school and the treasury report to the District Educational Officcr, which were acknowledged by them and proceedings dated 16. I I.2O22 were issued, however, his case was not considered. Hence, petitioner is stated to have submitted reprcsentation dated, 22.07.2024 to the District Collector and the District Educational Officer. To justify his contention, petitioner has placed before this Court the copy of the proceedings dated 16.1 1.2022 wherein the District Educational Officcr drawn attention of the Mandal Educational Officer, Khammam Urban to the representation dated 29 .1O.2O22 of to search the records of the 5s and requested p€rtrtroner respondent school (aided) once and also requested to period from the DTO/STO, slips of the said obtain pay Khammam as the individual stated that he worked in Aided section as Ofhce Subordinate duly consulting the then Corrcspondent / Head Master / Teachers in the matter 6 Pctitioner lLiso annexecl to the writ affidavit the copy of the service recorrl ancl appointment order. Even from the perusal ol the impugne(l proct't:clings. it is clear that teachers who u,orked in aided posls al llre school were only transferr.ed cluring the closure ol tlt'. schools, u,hcrt:as the post of Attender was shown to be unai,led, In vieu. 6f the same, since petitioner's appointmcnt pre cl:rrcd closure o[ school, his absorption should have been consrck.recl under the government,s scheme for employees ol r:loscd rrrded schools.

6. F urlht'r, it is the claim of respondents that petitioner altltroac'hr.cl this Court after twenty fir.e years of closure ol si hool. IIere it is to be noted thal rejection of petitioner's a pplicir t ions on thc grounds of lack of evidence and delay appcars to bc r-rnlustificd lor he has consislently claimed that all relcvi nt ret'orcls rr.cre submitted by the Correspondent of the school to th(' authorities and he has been consistently approaching the r<'sJrondcnt authorities who assured that his case would t;< consrrlerr:d and believing the same. petitioner is stated to havc r,".aitccl till passing the impugned order. Hence, the delay in approaching the Court is attributable to the inaction ol the rcspondents in considering his repeated diat6. 1 a representations. The principle of natural justice mandates that petitioner's legitimate expectations be honoured.

7. In tight of the above analysis, this Court finds merit in petitioncr's claim. The proceedings dated 23-05-2O19 issued by the 2nd rcspondent is hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to restore petitioner's services as Attender and appoint him lo a suitable post in any aided school within Khammam District, with all consequential benelits including arrears.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. No costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, Khammam. Secretariai. At HYderabad. 1 The Principal Secretary, Education Department' State of Telangana' 2 il;'Dl;i*:i Eouiationar officer,, Khammam, Khammam District 5 i# b;;i;i;i E;;;;i6ri 5iil;' ;;d E'-officio, Di"t'r"t Project orricer' ssA' 4 ii;;'l\,i;;J"l Educational officer,, Khammam (Urbarl)r Khammam District' s ii*J;;;;U F-Sinii.i,, a"p uv its correspondent' Mamillasudem 6. ihe District collector,, Khammam District -^-..^. i ori cc t" Sn G eata Rangaiah Advocate-[oPUCj 8 Two ccs to GP ro, s.ri"'"i,-iiig[Qo-urt for tne Stateof T^elangana [oUT] 9. o;;6c td sn ponnekantiRamuiu, Party in Person (OPUC) 10 Two CD CoPies Khammam MBC BS 5 HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 ORDER WP.No.16958 of 2019 ia:-- ra.. ,. t',.,!-..;. /i'r' (.; L , '-) f ? f unn ilis I (' ')/ ATC rEo I )/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 09pe %{*