Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 381 (AP)

K. L. Kantha Rao v. Special Officer, AUP School

2008-06-17

V.ESWARAIAH

body2008
ORDER: The petitioner seeks to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the proceedings of the 1st respondent-Special Officer, AUP School, Vellatur dated 18.09.2002 in appointing the 4th respondent as Headmistress of AUP School, Vellator village and Mandal, Guntur District as illegal and arbitrary. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Management of the School i.e.2nd respondent appointed him as Head Master of the said school, vide proceedings dated 16.01.2002 as the regular Head Master died on 18.12.2000. It is further stated that the 4th respondent who was working as temporary Headmistress stated that she cannot continue as Headmistress due to her family responsibilities, and therefore the petitioner was appointed as Head Master w.e.f.23.01.2002. While so, the 1st respondent without giving any notice to him and to his utter surprise issued the impugned proceedings dated 18.09.2002 appointing the 4th respondent as Headmistress of the said school, informing the petitioner to hand over the charge to the 4th respondent. It is stated that the said action of the 1st respondent appointing the 4th respondent without giving any notice to him is contrary to the earlier proceedings of the 3rd respondent accepting him as Head Master dated 03.07.2002 and therefore, the impugned proceedings appointing the 4th respondent as Headmistress, without canceling the earlier proceedings and without giving any notice to the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Heard on either side and perused the material available on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the 4th respondent is the senior most B.Ed.Assistant working in the school, as such she is entitled to be appointed as Headmistress. As per the instructions issued by the Director of School Education, post of the Head Master shall be filled with senior most secondary grade teacher. It is stated that there are two B.Ed. Assistants and six SGT and one Hindi Pandit Grade II are working, out of which the 4th respondent is the senior most B.Ed. Assistant, and in the seniority list the petitioner stood at 7th place. The regular Head Master Sri K.V.L.V. Deekshithulu died due to ill health. At that time the 4th respondent expressed her unwillingness to take the charge of the Headmistress and next senior most B.Ed. Assistant, and in the seniority list the petitioner stood at 7th place. The regular Head Master Sri K.V.L.V. Deekshithulu died due to ill health. At that time the 4th respondent expressed her unwillingness to take the charge of the Headmistress and next senior most B.Ed. Assistant Smt. K.Papa was also expressed her unwillingness to hold the said post, and the other seniors of the petitioner said to have been stated that they have no objection to appoint eligible senior most teacher as Head Master by the competent authority. As such without considering the case of the seniors, the Management is said to have considered the candidature of the petitioner and appointed him as Head Master vide proceedings dated 16.01.2002. Subsequently, the Management realized the said mistake and after taking the willing letters of the concerned teachers, the 1st respondent considered the candidature of the senior most B. Ed. Assistant, the 4th respondent and appointed her as Headmistress of the School vide proceedings dated 18.09.2002. But it is stated that the petitioner refused to hand over the charge and therefore, the 4th respondent complained the official respondents and other teachers and also addressed letters to the 1st respondent about the action of the petitioner in refusing to hand over the charge, and accordingly, the Special Officer addressed a letter stating that the 1st respondent approved the proceedings of the Management for appointing the 4th respondent as Head Mistress and requested the petitioner to hand over the charge. 5. It is stated that the petitioner has not questioned the orders of the Management dated 16.09.2002 appointing the 4th respondent as Headmistress, but chosen to question only the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 18.09.2002. The impugned proceedings dated 18.09.2002 of the 1st respondent, in fact, is not the appointment order, but it is only an approval of the appointment order of the management dated 16.09.2002. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when there was an valid letter of management which was approved by the District Educational Officer on 03.07.2002 and an order was made in his favour to work as Head Master, it cannot be taken away without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when there was an valid letter of management which was approved by the District Educational Officer on 03.07.2002 and an order was made in his favour to work as Head Master, it cannot be taken away without issuing any notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. I am of the opinion that the proceedings of the management appointing the petitioner ignoring the seniority of the other eligible candidates itself is illegal, and merely because there was no notice issued by the 2nd respondent management in issuing the appointment orders dated 16.09.2002 in violation of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be said that the illegal appointment order appointing the petitioner ignoring the seniors is legal and valid. If the first appointment order appointing the petitioner itself is illegal, though the principles of natural justice are violated, the first illegal order of appointment cannot be restored. Admittedly, the petitioner stood at 7th place in the seniority list and he is not at all entitled to be appointed as Head Master, therefore, it cannot be said that the action of the 1st respondent appointing the 4th respondent as Head Master as illegal. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit to allow the writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.