1. Smt.P.Vijaya Lakshmi v. The State of Telangana

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGF,SH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 31416 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2"d respondent to accord promotion to petitioners to the post of School Assistant from SGT from the date of promotions granted by the 5th respondent to petitioners i.e. 1999 to 2OO2 respectively instead ol 01.O7.2OO4 with all consequential benefits like seniority, increments and paymcnl o[ arrears, etcetera.

2. The case of petitioners is that they are all working as School Assistants (Maths and Sciencc Subjects) in the 56 respondent School on promotion from their initial post of Secondary Grade Teachers with requisite qualifications betwcen 1999-2002 as per their seniority and subject rcquirement in a clear, sanctioned, aided vacancies arisen out of retirement. As il is an aided school, the 5m respondent management submitted proposals to the 4th respondent through Deputy Educational Officer for approval. Later the 4th respondent foru,arded the same to lhe 3rd respondent - Regional Joint Director. Pctitioners t, \ state that fhe 3'd respondent approved promotions of petitioners 1 t L ) with elfect lrom 01.07.2004 uide Proceedings d:rrr C 03.07.2004 but not from the date of actual promotions gran :d lty the 5th respondent Correspondent.

2.1. PeLitioners state that since then, th, 1. have been requesting Respondents 2 Lo 4 to accord appr )val to their promotions from the date of promotions givc r b). the 5.h respondent. Since there is no response, they Iilerl Writ Petition No. 21190 ol' 201O, whercin this Court dirr:, ted the lst respondent Commissioner and Director of School Education to pass approprrate orders on the representation o[ l etitioners on 27.O9.2O1O. 'lhough thcre were specific direc:tir ns, the 2nd responden[ did not pass any orders. On the other rand, the 3.d respondent passed order dated 31.12.2014 rejectirrl the claim of pctitioners to accord approval from the retrospc(:t Lve dates by stating as n()t feasible. lt is pertinent to mention tlt rt this Court specificalty directed the lsr respondent to exam 1 e the issue with refcrence to the relevant provisions of lar" and ordcrs issued by the Government from time to time, her:e, the said action of the 3.a respondent is impugned in thc rresent Writ Petition. I I t, t. J It is stated, the 3'd respondent is not the competent

2.2. authority to pass orders, hence, petitioners filed Appeal through the 5m respondent before the 2"d respondent bringing the facts to their notice on 25.01.2018. Prior to this also, it is claimed' petitioners filed a representation to the 4d' respondent which was received on O3.O1.2015. Though number of representations were filed before all the respondents, no action has been taken so far and the same are still pending Very recently on 25.O1.2018, they submitted Appeals to the 2"d respondent separately also by enclosing promotional orders of the 5m rcspondent and the Deputy Educational Officer's proposals to the DEO. In the present Appeals, petitioners clearly mentioned that G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 26.02'1998 on rationalization is not at all applicabte to their cases and the then Deputy Educational Of[-rcer had reviewed all the particulars and aspects and then only recommended the dates of their promotions re trospectively' They have clearly stated that they were appointed long back and wcre promoted in a clear aided vacancy arisen out of retirement' It is further stated, the 5th respondent had also 2.3. considered all the aspects and effected their promotions as per their subject requirements and rightly submitted proposals to I 1 l. h t, t t. 4 the competent authorities. The 4h petitioner i; retiring on

30.09.2018 and others are retiring in 1 or 2 yean: In fact, they Iost their promotional chances to the next post o[ llead Master. As stated above, all the pctitioners were promotel: zrgainst clear vacancies and their vacancies are sanctioned aidcc posts and by granting promotions to them retrospectively tht r : will not be any financial burden to the ofhcial respondenl -. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. The 3rd respondent filed counter s i ting that on receipt of proposals from lhe 5h respondent for promotion of petitioners as School Assistants, the samc was v:rified as per the rationalization norms in respect of aide < schools in G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 02.06.1998, after examin I g the issue, after submission of proposals from the 4th respo rdent who is supervisory olhcer and after causing inspection, erificatiot-t of records by rhe Deputy Educational Officers whc.r , :e inspecting and controlling officcrs and after verihcation of tht vacancies of School Assistants and the roster points of the vr:ancies, they examined the representation as per Rules in force rnd approved promotions frorn O3.O7 .2OO4 in the aided po,. - as School Assistants. It is stated, petitioners have earlier hle,i Writ Petition ) No.239O 1 of 2O 1O for considering promotions as School Assistants. This Court by order dated 27.O9 2010 directed the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation daLed O1.O7.2004 within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Petitioners shall enclose copy of the representation along with copy of the said order and submit the same to the 1't respondent.

3.1. Thc 3.drespondent stated that petitioners arc working in the 5d'respondent aided school as Secondary Grade Teachers. As per Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No' 1, School Education dated O 1.01. 1994, the competent authority for the High Schools is the 3'd respondent. On receipt of representations, the 2"d respondent forwarded the same to the 3'd Respondent to examine and issue orders as directed by this Court' Pursuant thereto, the 3'd respondent after examining the matter in accordance u,ith rules confirmed the appointments of petitroners in the promotion post of School Assistant from O I O7'2OO4 Petitioners again hled this writ Petition to set aside the order issued by the 3'd respondent dated 31'l22Ol4 and requested to approve the promotions issued by the Sth respondent from 1999 to 2OO2 respectively instead of Ol 'W '2OO4 with all -/ I ^ t t. L i 6 consequential benefits. It is lurther stated, consi,l rring the facts and circumstances and the Rules in force, the l\ ,peals filed by petitioners zrre also disposed of by the 2"d r:spondent on

29.O9.2O1a duly inlorming that there are no fr: rh grounds to re-consider the Appeal, to change the appr >val of their promotion with retrospective date.

3.2. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.(t .1994, under Rule i 2 sub-rules (8) & (9) u,hich are extracted un lcr " All appointments made either teaching or nr r by aided or un aided institutions authority. For th r educational agency shall inform the competent authori month approval unless the selection has been in violatio l lf the approval is not granted within tuo months from th of the proposals in respect of unaided posts the ap r deemed to have been granted ln order to obviate confus incumbent on the educational agenc-v to remind the corn r one month after the initial communication, if no appror r burden of proof of having communicated the selection t(, authority shall lie rvith the educational agency. .tcaching staff purpose the v within one- cl these rules. late of receipt oval shall be ln, rt shall be tcnt:ruthority received. The Ire competent (9) The educational agenc,r' shalt make appo r irnenL only on the approvzrl as per sub rule (tt) above." the 3.d respondenl stales that though the 5e resp ,ndent said to have been appointed petitioners from 1999 tr 2002, it is incumbent on the 5th respondent to inform t re competent authority by way of submission of proposals ir Ld subject to 1 i 7 veriflcation and scrutiny by the competent authorities as per Rules. Respondents after receipt of proposals / information examined the case duly following the process of verihcation and procedures with reference to rationalization, rule of reservation, suitability of candidates, qualifications and approved the promotions as per sub-rule (9) of Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated

01.O1.1994 by the 3'd respondent on O3.O7.20O4 in the aided posl as School Assista n ts.

3.3. The 3'd responden[ states that pursuant to the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.23901 of 2O1O, the 3'd respondent passed appropriate orders dated 3l .)'2.2014 rn accordance with Rules. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gagan Visho;n Gujarati v. State of Rajasthanl, tlnion of India u. K.K. Vadera2 ar.d Gouernment of West Bengal vs Amal So,tpathi (O1.O2.2O23), it is stated, there are no merits in the Writ Petition, as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Sff respondent - School hled counter stating that all the petitioners were promoted in clear vacancies that arose due to retirement of the then existing candidates. By the '1z3ro; r$ scc za 'ArF 1e9t sc 443 t 8 .\ t. date of their promotion, they are fully eligible to I old the posts, hence proposals have been sent to the 3'd respor( ent, who kept the proposals till 2004 and passed orders fo approval by proceedings dated 03 .O7 .2004 giving elfect frc r r the date of orders instead from the date of promotions. It is rtated, though petitioners were promoted during 1999-2002, t he same was given effect to on O3.O7.20O4 for which they arc J rsing nearly 3 to 4 years serwice; the 4th petitioner already rt:t lred and after filing writ petition, the Director of School I! lucation also rejected petitioners' claim to give effect [o the pr rmotions from the date of promotions, by his proceedings dated

19.O9.2O 18 by holding that there are no fresh grounds to cons: ler their case ald the same has been questioned in Writ Petitic,r No. 31416 of 2018 by way of an amendment. This responderrt sr-rbmits that petitioners are eligible to get promotions and the r ame has been approved by the Regional Joint Director. but the r ame has been given with prospective effect hence questionerl in this Writ Petition.

5. By order dated O6.11.2018 in I.A.No 2 of 2018, the prayer was amended, including challenge to t I : proceedings I ) t I t. I. 9 dated 29.09.2O18 issued by the 2"d respondent whereunder Appeals of petitioners were rejected. Heard Ms. K. Swarna Sheshu, learned counsel for

6. petitioners and Ms. B- Annapurna, Iearned Assrstant Government Pleader for Services I and perused the record'

7. The issue revolves around whether promotions of petitioners to the post of School Assistant from Secondary Grade Teachers in the aicled school managed by the Sft respondent can be given retrospcctive effect from the dates of promotion by the 5o' respondent between 1999 ard 2OO2, rather than from O1.07.2O04 as approved by the 3'd respondent in proceedings dated 03.O7 .2OO4 . Petitioners contend that their promotions were made against clear sanctioned aided vacancies arising from retirements, they possess requisite qualifications of B.Sc., B.Ed., and that the 5rh respondent submitted proposals promptly through the 4fr respondent td the 3'd respondent' They argue that the delay in approval by the 3'd respondent until 2004 and granting of prospective promotion with effect from 01 .07.2O04 is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justlce, leading to loss of seniority, increments, arrears, and further promotional opportunities to Head Master posts' In L, & t 'I 'I I l0 support of the case of petitioners on the aspect ( f delay, they relied on the judgment dated 22.08.2013 in Writ t.1 peal No. 202 of 2Ol2 wherein the learned Division Bench : rnhrmed the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the \tui it Petition in part directing the appeliants to give effec[ to the bsorption of the lst respondent herein in the aided SGT post r: The further case of petitioners is that G.O.Ms,. rospectively. tlo.49 dated

26.02.1998 on rationalization does not apply to t,r :ir cases, as their promotions were in clear aided vacancies an: that the 3rd respondent's rejection in proceedings dated 31.12.. 2",1 respondent's disposal of Appeals on 29.) 114 and the ).20 18 and Rc.No.225l PSt /2018 dated 29.O9.2018 are not fe:r;. :le and lack competence, especially since the earlier direction in Vrit Petition No. 23901 of 2OlO dated 22.O9.2010 was for the 1sr to examine with reference to laws and governrr Petitioners highlight their long service, impendi.,g; including the 4b petitioner Smt. K. Vasan,r 3O.O9.2O18, and no financial burden to the go\( negation, the 3'd respondent counters that prcl verified per rationalization norms under G.O.Ms.i,J 02.06.1998, involving inspection by DepuB. I respondent enl orders. retiremen ts Lamma On rnment. In osals were r.49, dated )ducational I I ) 1l Ofhcers, verifrcation of vacancies and roster points, and approval was granted from O 1.07.2004 as per Rules in force, emphasizing that under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No. 1, School respondent is the Education dated O1.01.1994, the 3'd competent authority for high schools. The 3'd respondent reasons that promotions require approval under Rule 12 sub- rule (8) and (9) of G.O.Ms.No. i, dated 01.O1.1994, which mandate the educational agency to inform within one month, remind if no response, and make appointments only upon approval, with deemed approval for unaided posts after two months but not for aided, and that the process involved rationalization, reservation rules, candidate suitabilily, and qualihcations. The 3'd respondent negates retrospective effect by citing that the earlier court direction in Writ Petition No' 23901 of 201O was complied with by confirming from Ol.O7.2OO4, and Appeals were disposed of as no fresh grounds, stating retrospective is not feasible. The 3'd respondent takes supports from the judgments of the Hon'b1e Supreme Court in Gagan Vishan Guiarati's case, K-K.Vaderc's case and Am'ol Satpo;thi's case. The Sft respondent, vvhile noting petitioners' eligibiiity, experience over 1O years, promotions in clear aided I t k ',1 'I 2 vacancies with no financial burden, and reconr nendation for modification on 29.01.2018, ultimately prays t , dismiss the writ, acknou,ledging the prospective approval al i rejection by authorities.

8. It 1s to be observed, in aided scho<r s, promotions are not effective until approved by the comp,: ent authority under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated O1.01.1994 Rule 12 (8, rnd (9), which require verification and scrutiny, and the ,) :1 respondent followed due process including rationaliz rtion under G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 02.06.1998 or 26.02.1998, r spec[ion, and ros[er compliance, granting approval from 01.07. OO4. There is no express provision in the relevant rules fcr retrospective promotion. In Ciagan Visho,n Gujarati's ca:;r (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the effective da e of selection has to be understood in the context of the Servi:; : Rules under which the appointment is made and seniori y cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vaca:'r :v and cannot be given re[rospectively unless it is so expressly 1t 'ovided by the relevant Service Rules. In K.K.Vad.era's cas.- (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that there is no 1av' or rule under which a promotion is lo be effective from the date of creation of I I i l1 t i I i i I the promotional post and that after a post fa'lls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date of promotion is granted and not from the date when such post falls vacant. A similar view was taken in the judgment in Amo:l Satpathi's case. It has been held therein that after a post fails vacant for any reason whatsoever, promotion to the post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant lt has heen further observedthatintheabsenceofanymaterialthattheauthoriry has wantonly delayed the promotion and in the absence of taint of malice for the delay, the claim of the respondent therein seeking promotion cannot be considered on the ground of delay due to administrative reasons at the hands of petitioner department, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent therein and the same is liable to be rejected No materials have been placed before this Court to prove the mola 'ftde or illegality on the part of the authority for the delay in finalising the promotion Panel. g. In view of the same, this Court hnds no violation of natural justice as representations were examined' orders were passed per court direction in Writ Petition No'239O1 of 2010' I I \ \ t4 and Appeals were rejected on 29.O9.2018 for. lack of lresh grounds. The 3.d respondent's competence u:t ler Rule 3 is upheld, and petitioners' assertion that G.C. vIs.No.49 not applicable is negated as verification includecl -ationalization norms, reserwation, and qualifications. No arbitr: riness shorvn, as process involved supervisory officers and inril ections. Even the 5e respondent's support for eligibility does nc - override rule requirement lor approval.

10. This Court is Lherefore, is of the opi: ion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same s accordingly dismissed- No costs. I 1 . closed Miscellaneous petitions, pending if a:.: r', shall stand ,\s SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG S STANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// ,\ I 1 SECTION OFFICER To, \ \ .1 . One CC to [r,4/s K. Swarna Seshu, Advocate tOPtiQl 2. Two CCs to GP for Services l, High Court forthe Stat: of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 3- Two CD Copies TJ GJP MMT I _ .. i,1 l -. ,d I l : HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 ORDER WP.No.31416 ot 2018 {H SI,T c) o u 2 2 Jl,l 2026 z c) .sl:r \ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I l I , F0|4r a es