Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1008 (TS)

P. Vijaya Lakshmi v. State of Telangana

2025-09-10

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the 2 nd 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 2002 respectively instead of 01.07.2004 with all consequential benefits like seniority, increments and payment of arrears, etcetera. 2. The case of petitioners is that they are all working as School Assistants (Maths and Science Subjects) in the 5 th respondent School on promotion from their initial post of Secondary Grade Teachers with requisite qualifications between 1999-2002 as per their seniority and subject requirement in a clear, sanctioned, aided vacancies arisen out of retirement. As it is an aided school, the 5 th respondent management submitted proposals to the 4 th respondent through Deputy Educational Officer for approval. Later the 4th respondent forwarded the same to the 3 rd respondent - Regional Joint Director. Petitioners state that the 3 rd respondent approved promotions of petitioners with effect from 01.07.2004 vide Proceedings dated 03.07.2004 but not from the date of actual promotions granted by the 5th respondent Correspondent. 2.1. Petitioners state that since then, they have been requesting Respondents 2 to 4 to accord approval to their promotions from the date of promotions given by the 5 th respondent. Since there is no response, they filed Writ Petition No. 2390 of 2010, wherein this Court directed the 1st respondent - Commissioner and Director of School Education to pass appropriate orders on the representation of petitioners on 27.09.2010. Though there were specific directions, the 2 nd respondent did not pass any orders. On the other hand, the 3rd respondent passed order dated 31.12.2014 rejecting the claim of petitioners to accord approval from the retrospective dates by stating as not feasible. It is pertinent to mention that this Court specifically directed the 1 st respondent to examine the issue with reference to the relevant provisions of law and orders issued by the Government from time to time, hence, the said action of the 3rd respondent is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 2.2. It is stated, the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority to pass orders, hence, petitioners filed Appeal through the 5 th respondent before the 2 nd respondent bringing the facts to their notice on 25.01.2018. 2.2. It is stated, the 3rd respondent is not the competent authority to pass orders, hence, petitioners filed Appeal through the 5 th respondent before the 2 nd respondent bringing the facts to their notice on 25.01.2018. Prior to this also, it is claimed, petitioners filed a representation to the 4 th respondent which was received on 03.01.2015. 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 25.01.2018, they submitted Appeals to the 2 nd respondent separately also by enclosing promotional orders of the 5 th respondent 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 applicable to their cases and the then Deputy Educational Officer had reviewed all the particulars and aspects and then only recommended the dates of their promotions retrospectively. They have clearly stated that they were appointed long back and were promoted in a clear aided vacancy arisen out of retirement. 2.3. It is further stated, the 5th respondent had also considered all the aspects and effected their promotions as per their subject requirements and rightly submitted proposals to the competent authorities. The 4th petitioner is retiring on 30.09.2018 and others are retiring in 1 or 2 years. In fact, they lost their promotional chances to the next post of Head Master. As stated above, all the petitioners were promoted against clear vacancies and their vacancies are sanctioned aided posts and by granting promotions to them retrospectively there will not be any financial burden to the official respondents. Hence, this Writ Petition. 3. The 3 rd respondent filed counter stating that on receipt of proposals from the 5 th respondent for promotion of petitioners as School Assistants, the same was verified as per the rationalization norms in respect of aided schools in G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 02.06.1998, after examining the issue, after submission of proposals from the 4th respondent who is supervisory officer and after causing inspection, verification of records by the Deputy Educational Officers who are inspecting and controlling officers and after verification of the vacancies of School Assistants and the roster points of the vacancies, they examined the representation as per Rules in force and approved promotions from 03.07.2004 in the aided post as School Assistants. It is stated, petitioners have earlier filed Writ Petition No.23901 of 2010 for considering promotions as School Assistants. This Court by order dated 27.09.2010 directed the 1 st respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 01.07.2004 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 1st respondent. 3.1. The 3rdrespondent stated that petitioners are working in the 5 th respondent aided school as Secondary Grade Teachers. As per Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1, School Education dated 01.01.1994, the competent authority for the High Schools is the 3 rd respondent. On receipt of representations, the 2 nd respondent forwarded the same to the 3rd Respondent to examine and issue orders as directed by this Court. Pursuant thereto, the 3 rd respondent after examining the matter in accordance with rules confirmed the appointments of petitioners in the promotion post of School Assistant from 01.07.2004. Petitioners again filed this Writ Petition to set aside the order issued by the 3rd respondent dated 31.12.2014 and requested to approve the promotions issued by the 5 th respondent from 1999 to 2002 respectively instead of 01.07.2004 with all consequential benefits. It is further stated, considering the facts and circumstances and the Rules in force, the Appeals filed by petitioners are also disposed of by the 2 nd respondent on 29.09.2018 duly informing that there are no fresh grounds to re-consider the Appeal, to change the approval of their promotion with retrospective date. 3.2. Relying on G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, under Rule 12 sub-rules (8) & (9) which are extracted under: “All appointments made either teaching or non-teaching staff by aided or un-aided institutions authority. For this purpose the educational agency shall inform the competent authority within one- month approval unless the selection has been in violation of these rules. If the approval is not granted within two months from the date of receipt of the proposals in respect of unaided posts the approval shall be deemed to have been granted. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the educational agency to remind the competent authority one month after the initial communication, if no approval received. The burden of proof of having communicated the selection to the competent authority shall lie with the educational agency. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the educational agency to remind the competent authority one month after the initial communication, if no approval received. The burden of proof of having communicated the selection to the competent authority shall lie with the educational agency. (9) The educational agency shall make appointment only on the approval as per sub-rule (8) above.” The 3 rd respondent states that though the 5 th respondent said to have been appointed petitioners from 1999 to 2002, it is incumbent on the 5 th respondent to inform the competent authority by way of submission of proposals and subject to verification and scrutiny by the competent authorities as per Rules. Respondents after receipt of proposals / information examined the case duly following the process of verification 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 01.01.1994 by the 3rd respondent on 03.07.2004 in the aided post as School Assistants. 3.3. The 3 rd respondent states that pursuant to the direction of this Court in Writ Petition No.23901 of 2010, the 3 rd respondent passed appropriate orders dated 31.12.2014 in accordance with Rules. Relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gagan Vishan Gujarati v. State of Rajasthan , (2019) 16 SCC 28 , Union of India v. K.K. Vadera , AIR 1990 SC 443 and Government of West Bengal v. Amal Satpathi (01.02.2023), it is stated, there are no merits in the Writ Petition, as such the same is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 5 th respondent - School filed counter stating that all the petitioners were promoted in clear vacancies that arose due to retirement of the then existing candidates. By the date of their promotion, they are fully eligible to hold the posts, hence proposals have been sent to the 3rd respondent, who kept the proposals till 2004 and passed orders for approval by proceedings dated 03.07.2004 giving effect from the date of orders instead from the date of promotions. By the date of their promotion, they are fully eligible to hold the posts, hence proposals have been sent to the 3rd respondent, who kept the proposals till 2004 and passed orders for approval by proceedings dated 03.07.2004 giving effect from the date of orders instead from the date of promotions. It is stated, though petitioners were promoted during 1999-2002, the same was given effect to on 03.07.2004 for which they are losing nearly 3 to 4 years service; the 4th petitioner already retired and after filing writ petition, the Director of School Education also rejected petitioners’ claim to give effect to the promotions from the date of promotions, by his proceedings dated 29.09.2018 by holding that there are no fresh grounds to consider their case and the same has been questioned in Writ Petition No. 31416 of 2018 by way of an amendment. This respondent submits that petitioners are eligible to get promotions and the same has been approved by the Regional Joint Director, but the same has been given with prospective effect hence questioned in this Writ Petition. 5. By order dated 06.11.2018 in I.A.No. 2 of 2018, the prayer was amended, including challenge to the proceedings dated 29.09.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent whereunder Appeals of petitioners were rejected. 6. Heard Ms. K. Swarna Sheshu, learned counsel for petitioners and Ms. B. Annapurna, learned Assistant 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 aided school managed by the 5th respondent can be given retrospective effect from the dates of promotion by the 5 th respondent between 1999 and 2002, rather than from 01.07.2004 as approved by the 3 rd respondent in proceedings dated 03.07.2004. 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 5 th respondent submitted proposals promptly through the 4 th respondent to the 3 rd respondent. They argue that the delay in approval by the 3 rd respondent until 2004 and granting of prospective promotion with effect from 01.07.2004 is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice, leading to loss of seniority, increments, arrears, and further promotional opportunities to Head Master posts. They argue that the delay in approval by the 3 rd respondent until 2004 and granting of prospective promotion with effect from 01.07.2004 is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of natural justice, leading to loss of seniority, increments, arrears, and further promotional opportunities to Head Master posts. In support of the case of petitioners on the aspect of delay, they relied on the judgment dated 22.08.2013 in Writ Appeal No. 202 of 2012 wherein the learned Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition in part directing the appellants to give effect to the absorption of the 1 st respondent herein in the aided SGT post retrospectively. The further case of petitioners is that G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 26.02.1998 on rationalization does not apply to their cases, as their promotions were in clear aided vacancies and that the 3 rd respondent's rejection in proceedings dated 31.12.2014 and the 2 nd respondent's disposal of Appeals on 29.09.2018 and Rc.No.225/PSI/2018 dated 29.09.2018 are not feasible and lack competence, especially since the earlier direction in Writ Petition No. 23901 of 2010 dated 27.09.2010 was for the 1st respondent to examine with reference to laws and government orders. Petitioners highlight their long service, impending retirements including the 4 th petitioner Smt. K. Vasanthamma on 30.09.2018, and no financial burden to the government. In negation, the 3rd respondent counters that proposals were verified per rationalization norms under G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 02.06.1998, involving inspection by Deputy Educational Officers, verification of vacancies and roster points, and approval was granted from 01.07.2004 as per Rules in force, emphasizing that under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1, School Education dated 01.01.1994, the 3 rd respondent is the competent authority for high schools. The 3 rd respondent reasons that promotions require approval under Rule 12 sub- rule (8) and (9) of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, 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 suitability, and qualifications. The 3rd respondent negates retrospective effect by citing that the earlier court direction in Writ Petition No. 23901 of 2010 was complied with by confirming from 01.07.2004, and Appeals were disposed of as no fresh grounds, stating retrospective is not feasible. The 3rd respondent negates retrospective effect by citing that the earlier court direction in Writ Petition No. 23901 of 2010 was complied with by confirming from 01.07.2004, and Appeals were disposed of as no fresh grounds, stating retrospective is not feasible. The 3 rd respondent takes supports from the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gagan Vishan Gujarati ’s case, K.K. Vadera ’s case and Amal Satpathi’s case. The 5th respondent, while noting petitioners' eligibility, experience over 10 years, promotions in clear aided vacancies with no financial burden, and recommendation for modification on 29.01.2018, ultimately prays to dismiss the writ, acknowledging the prospective approval and rejection by authorities. 8. It is to be observed, in aided schools, promotions are not effective until approved by the competent authority under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 Rule 12 (8) and (9), which require verification and scrutiny, and the 3rd respondent followed due process including rationalization under G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 02.06.1998 or 26.02.1998, inspection, and roster compliance, granting approval from 01.07.2004. There is no express provision in the relevant rules for retrospective promotion. In Gagan Vishan Gujarati’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the effective date of selection has to be understood in the context of the Service Rules under which the appointment is made and seniority cannot be reckoned from the date of occurrence of the vacancy and cannot be given retrospectively unless it is so expressly provided by the relevant Service Rules. In K.K. Vadera’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no law or rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post and that after a post falls 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 Amal Satpathi ’s case. It has been held therein that after a post falls 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. A similar view was taken in the judgment in Amal Satpathi ’s case. It has been held therein that after a post falls 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. It has been further observed that in the absence of any material that the authority 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 mala fide or illegality on the part of the authority for the delay in finalising the promotion panel. 9. In view of the same, this Court finds no violation of natural justice as representations were examined, orders were passed per court direction in Writ Petition No.23901 of 2010, and Appeals were rejected on 29.09.2018 for lack of fresh grounds. The 3rd respondent's competence under Rule 3 is upheld, and petitioners' assertion that G.O.Ms.No.49 not applicable is negated as verification included rationalization norms, reservation, and qualifications. No arbitrariness shown, as process involved supervisory officers and inspections. Even the 5th respondent's support for eligibility does not override rule requirement for approval. 10. This Court is therefore, is of the opinion that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 11. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.