JUDGMENT : ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for School Education, appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. P. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. G. Bala Rangaiah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner in W.A. No. 480 of 2021 and respondent Nos. 1 and 2/writ petitioners in W.A. No. 482 of 2021. 2. W.A. No. 480 of 2021 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 and W.A. No. 482 of 2021 is preferred against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2012 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012. 3. Though the judgments in the above writ petitions were delivered on two different dates, learned counsel for the parties submit that the respondents (appellants herein) in the writ petitions are same and the issue arising in both the writ petitions is also one and the same, and therefore, both the writ appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 4. Learned Counsel for the parties had placed reliance on the pleadings and materials in W.A. No. 482 of 2021 and therefore, reference is made to the pleadings and material papers available in W.A. No. 482 of 2021. 5. Respondent No. 4 in both the writ petitions, namely: Sri. Bala Siva Girls High School (Aided) represented by its President/Correspondent, Mydukur, YSR District, had issued paper notification dated 17.03.2002 in the local newspapers calling for applications from the eligible candidates for the unaided post of Secondary Grade Teacher (for short ‘the SGT’) and Grade II Hindi Pandit, meant for OC women and OC General, respectively, as per roster. For the post of SGT, 10 candidates appeared for selection and the 1st petitioner in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012 was selected as SGT on 11.09.2002 by the Staff Selection Committee, wherein nominee of the Deputy District Educational Officer also participated, while for the post of Grade II Hindi Pandit, the 2nd petitioner and five others appeared before the selection committee and the 2nd petitioner was selected for the said post. It is pleaded that the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent to approve the selections made by the Selection Committee on several times, but no action was taken. It is pleaded that the 4th respondent requested the 3rd respondent to approve the selections made by the Selection Committee on several times, but no action was taken. It is also pleaded that the 4th respondent had been making representations to absorb the petitioners in the aided vacancies of SGT and Grade II Hindi Pandit as there were several vacant aided posts of SGT and Grade II Hindi Pandit and there are many instances of absorption of unaided teachers in aided vacancies. However, the petitioners were not absorbed. 6. With the aforesaid factual matrix, the writ petitions came to be filed praying for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (appellants herein) to consider the request of respondent No. 4-school for absorption of the writ petitioners in aided vacancies of SGT and Grade II Hindi Pandit respectively. 7. The case of the sole petitioner in W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 is similar to the case of the petitioners in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012, except that the petitioner in W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 was selected by the Staff Selection Committee on 11.09.2002 for the post of Junior Assistant out of ten candidates. 8. The learned single Judge relied on the judgment rendered in W.P. No. 5189 of 2006 (P. Ramalinga Reddy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Hyderabad) and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the aided posts held by them from the date of their original appointment with all consequential benefits. In order to give directions as noted hereinabove, the learned single Judge extracted the following portion of P. Ramalinga Reddy (supra): “.........the respondent authorities are adopting a pick and choose selective methodology to suit their own vested interests for admitting particular incumbents to grant-in-aid posts. This blatant arbitrariness falls foul of the principles of equality and fair play in action enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent authorities are bound to adopt a consistent stand while dealing with these cases and their discriminatory and purely subjective and whimsical handling of similarly situated cases clearly demonstrates that their functioning is not in accordance with the rule of law. The petitioner, having been appointed as per the prescribed procedure against an aided vacancy, cannot, therefore, be denied approval of his appointment by the respondent authorities given the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner, having been appointed as per the prescribed procedure against an aided vacancy, cannot, therefore, be denied approval of his appointment by the respondent authorities given the facts and circumstances of the case. Ergo, the adamant attitude of the authorities in trying to deny the petitioner by clutching at straws, as is evident from their counter, requires to be condemned.” 9. The cause of action in P. Ramalinga Reddy (supra) was refusal by the State Government of the request of the management of Sree Ankala Reddy Memorial Degree College, Allagadda, Kurnool District, to admit the writ petitioner therein to the grand-in-aid post of Librarian. In P. Ramalinga Reddy (supra), it was also observed as follows: “A glance at the instances cited by the petitioner clearly demonstrates the veracity of his contention. G.O.Rt. No. 160, Higher Education (CE.II.2) Department, dated 16.02.2001, was issued by the Government appointing and admitting to grant-in-aid one Dr. R.V. Anuradha as a Lecturer in English in Pragathi Mahavidyalaya Degree College, Hyderabad, though she was not even appointed as per the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 10.01.1992. This case was not covered by any order from this Court. However, the Government deemed it fit to extend benefit to her notwithstanding its so-called ban orders under Government Memo dated 17.12.1999 and the violation of the prescribed procedure under G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 10.01.1992. There is no explanation forthcoming from the authorities as regards this case. G.O.Rt. No. 359, Higher Education (IE.II) Department, dated 25.04.2005, was issued according permission for regularization of the services of one V. Naga Maheswara Reddy against a vacant aided post in RES Junior College, Mydukur, Kadapa District, in relaxation of the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 10.01.1992. The G.O. reads to the effect that the said order was passed in the light of the orders of this Court in Writ Petition No. 12966 of 2004. A copy of the order dated 12.08.2004 passed in the said writ petition is placed on record and demonstrates that no positive direction was issued in the said case. The Government was only directed to consider the case of the petitioner therein for regularization of his service as a Junior Lecturer and to pass appropriate orders according to the rules. Relevant to note, a similar direction was passed earlier in the case of the petitioner also. The Government was only directed to consider the case of the petitioner therein for regularization of his service as a Junior Lecturer and to pass appropriate orders according to the rules. Relevant to note, a similar direction was passed earlier in the case of the petitioner also. This Court therefore finds it incomprehensible as to how a similar direction by this Court in two cases evoked altogether different responses. By G.O.Ms. No. 360, Higher Education (IE.II) Department, dated 25.04.2005, the Government accorded permission for regularization of the services of one K. Sree Devi, Junior Lecturer in Commerce in S.V.B. Junior College, S. Mattam, Kadapa District, against an aided vacant post in relaxation of the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 10.01.1992. This regularization was also in relation to an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 13507 of 2004. The order dated 02.08.2004 passed in the said writ petition is placed on record and indicates that this Court, taking note of the fact that the representation of the petitioner was pending from more than ten months, directed the Government to pass appropriate orders thereon and communicate the same. Yet again, no positive direction, but the authorities were inspired. It may be noted that in both the above cases the prescribed procedure under G.O.Ms. No. 12 dated 10.01.1992 had not been followed, requiring the relaxation of the rules contained in the said G.O. In spite of mere ‘consider’ orders from this Court, the Government swung into action, ignored its so-called ban orders in Memo dated 17.12.1999 and accommodated the persons concerned in aided posts. In spite of the petitioner having been selected and appointed as per due procedure and in spite of a similar 'consider' order from this Court, he was denied the same benefit. Thus, the above material clearly indicates that the respondent authorities are adopting a subjective and capricious approach in dealing with cases pertaining to admission to grant-in-aid. Where it suits their purposes, violation of rules notwithstanding, a mere direction to consider is deemed sufficient to grant relief but in other cases, as in the case on hand, rejection ensues on one flimsy ground or the other.” 10. In the aforesaid instances, which were taken note of, it appears that the writ petitioners therein were appointed by the management of the institutions in the aided vacancies. In the aforesaid instances, which were taken note of, it appears that the writ petitioners therein were appointed by the management of the institutions in the aided vacancies. A direction was issued in the aforesaid case (P. Ramalinga Reddy) on the ground that the petitioner therein had been appointed as per the prescribed procedure against an aided vacancy. However, in the instant case, the petitioners were appointed in unaided posts. Thus, the judgment relied upon by the learned single Judge i.e. P. Ramalinga Reddy (supra), is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as the petitioner therein was appointed against an aided vacancy, whereas in the present case, the writ petitioners were appointed against unaided vacancies. 11. The appellants herein had filed review petition against the order in W.P. No. 12056 of 2012 and the same was dismissed. 12. Mr. K.V. Raghuveer, learned Government Pleader for School Education, submits that the appellants had been denied opportunity of representing their case by filing a counter-affidavit. While W.P. No. 12056 of 2012 was filed on 23.04.2012, the same came to be disposed of on the next day i.e. 24.04.2012, and that W.P. No. 12790 of 2012 was filed on 26.04.2012 and on the next day i.e. on 27.04.2012, the same came to be disposed of. 13. The aforesaid submissions are all factually correct though no ground of denial of adequate opportunity to defend is taken. 14. Though the petitioners in the affidavit stated that the State Government in several similar cases considered absorption of unaided teachers on the request of managements and issued orders, no specific instances had been given. On the basis of mere statement of the petitioners, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that there cannot be any doubt that the respondents had considered the cases of similarly situated persons. Though in the appeal proceedings, some documents have been filed by both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that it will not be appropriate to record any finding on the issues arising in the absence of a proper affidavit by the appellants. 15. Accordingly, impugned judgments of the learned single Judge in both the writ petitions are set aside. These matters are remanded to the learned single Judge to re-consider and dispose of the same after affording opportunity to the parties on record. 16. 15. Accordingly, impugned judgments of the learned single Judge in both the writ petitions are set aside. These matters are remanded to the learned single Judge to re-consider and dispose of the same after affording opportunity to the parties on record. 16. We permit the appellants to file affidavit on or before 20.09.2021 before the learned single Judge, failing which no further time may be granted to file affidavit and the case may be proceeded with treating the averments made in the writ affidavit as admitted facts. 17. Registry will list the writ petitions before the appropriate single Judge having roster on 22.09.2021. We request the learned single Judge to consider hearing of the writ petitions as expeditiously as possible. 18. With the above directions and observations, the Writ Appeals are allowed setting aside the orders under appeal. No costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.