ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to declare that the action of 1 st respondent in rejecting the approval of petitioner’s appointment and absorption into Aided post, is arbitrary, unreasonable and accordingly set aside the orders of the 1 st respondent in Memo No.11154/P.S.1/2004-1, dated 27.01.2005 in so far as the case of petitioner is concerned. Consequently, direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner by granting approval of her appointment and absorption into the Aided post on par with the teachers working under the same management as per order made in Government Memo No.22213/PS-1/2000-1, dated 25.09.2002, w.e.f. her date of absorption i.e. 01.05.2000 may be considered for payment of all the consequential benefits 2. Heard Sri N. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits as follows:- The petitioner passed Teachers Training Certificate Course in the year 1989. Subsequently, she also passed professional advancement test for Special Teachers in the year 1990 and further Professional Advancement for SGBT in the year 1991. As such, she is eligible for appointment of Secondary Grade Teacher. She has been working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Jyothi Bala Mandir High School, Viveknagar, Hyderabad, since 01.07.1971 to till date. She has completed more than 32 years continuous service in the said School. 4. As the petitioner had all the requisite qualifications, the management of the said school, submitted a representation to consider her case for appointing her in aided post. Keeping in view of her long service as SGBT Teacher, the Director of School Education addressed a letter to the Government in the month of March 1991 to appoint her in the grant-in-aid post. In the said letter the Director has categorically stated that she is having a long service, exemption may be granted to hold the post of SGBT. But, the Government did not pass any orders. 5. The Deputy Secretary of the Government as per his proceedings in Memo No.1274/PS.1/91-6, dated 31.01.1994 addressed to the Director of School Education stating that the petitioner need not possess requisite qualification to hold the post of SGBT and directed to take further action for granting of scale. Apart from that, the District Educational Officer also passed orders on 24.08.1999 directing the Principal, DIET, to permit the petitioner to join in the training. Apart from that, the District Educational Officer also passed orders on 24.08.1999 directing the Principal, DIET, to permit the petitioner to join in the training. As per the approval obtained by the management from the concerned officers, the petitioner was appointed in the aided vacancy w.e.f. 01.05.2000 and since then she has been working in the aided post. 6. With regard to the regularization of appointments of Un-aided posts, the Government already issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 in which certain rules were framed seeking approval of the posts. The Rule 12 (8) contemplates that all the appointments made to the teaching or non teaching by Aided or Un-aided Institutions shall be subject to the approval of the Competent Authority. These Rules will be applicable to the persons who were appointed subsequent to the issuance of the G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994. But in so far as the Teachers who were appointed prior to the G.O.Ms.No.1, the procedure is to follow the instructions in G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20.12.1988. Since petitioner’s appointment was prior to G.O.Ms.No.524 and the rules in G.O.Ms.No.1, the rules made under both the G.Os., are not applicable to her. 7. Since the petitioner got requisite qualifications, the District Educational Officer and the 3rd respondent herein used to Counter Sign in the seniority list prepared by the Deputy Educational Officer. Apart from that, the petitioner was directed to attend spot valuation of the classes VII and X. Moreover, the staff of the 3rd respondent visited the school on several occasions and they did not raise any objection with regard to continuity of the petitioner in the un-aided post and subsequent appointment in the aided post. The School Management had also prepared a seniority list, which was approved by the 3rdrespondent. All these issues amply prove that the respondents have recognized that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to the aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher. 8. On several occasions, representations were made requesting the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for approval of her absorption in Aided post. The said representations were made by the petitioner along with other teachers whose cases are also similar to her. 8. On several occasions, representations were made requesting the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner’s case for approval of her absorption in Aided post. The said representations were made by the petitioner along with other teachers whose cases are also similar to her. While so, two other teachers namely, Smt. K. Lalitha Kumar (SGBT Teacher) and R. Sandhya Rani (SGBT Teacher), working under the same Management at Vidyanagar, were considered by the 1 st respondent and orders were passed directing the Commissioner and Director of School Education for absorption of the said two teachers from un- aided to aided. The said orders were passed by the 1 st respondent vide Memo No.22213/PS-1/2000-1, dated 25.09.2002. Pursuant to the said orders, the 2 nd respondent had passed consequential orders absorbing the said two teachers into Aided posts as per his orders in Rc.No. 1716/D2-4/99, dated 29.10.2002. But, in so far as the petitioner’s case is concerned, the authorities did not take any action in spite of the fact that she is also on same footing. 9. After coming to know of the said orders, the petitioner made another representation along with other teachers to the 1 st respondent, requesting to consider their cases on par with the cases of Smt. K. Lalitha Kumari and Smt. R. Sandhya Rani. But, the 1 st respondent refused to consider their cases and passed the impugned order on 27.01.2005 rejecting petitioner’s case along with other persons. In the said impugned order, the 1 st respondent stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.524 as well as G.O.Ms.No.1, petitioner’s appointment is not in conformity with the rules and that prior to the G.O.Ms.No.1, there is another order issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20.12.1988 in which the procedure was mentioned with regard to absorption of the teachers into Aided post. As already stated above, petitioner was appointed on 01.07.1971 which is even prior to G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20.12.1988 as well as G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and the said Rules are also not applicable to her case. As such, the order of the 1 st respondent is absolutely wrong and petitioner’s case cannot be rejected on the ground that the procedure has not been complied with as per the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.524 as well as G.O.Ms.No.1. 10. As such, the order of the 1 st respondent is absolutely wrong and petitioner’s case cannot be rejected on the ground that the procedure has not been complied with as per the Rules in G.O.Ms.No.524 as well as G.O.Ms.No.1. 10. The Government has passed several orders in similar circumstances by approving the absorption of teachers into Aided posts vide Government Memo No. 16606/PS- 1/2000-2 Edn., dated 09.08.2002, Government Memo No. 19868/PS-1/2001-2 Edn., dated 23.11.2001 and Government Memo No.1460/PS-1/2004-1 Edn., dated 25.02.2004. In all these orders, the Government categorically considered the case of the other similarly situated teachers. The reasons stated in the impugned order are not in accordance with law. The 1 st respondent had passed the orders by rejecting all the cases of the teachers en masse and failed to consider the case of each teacher; as each and every case of the teacher is entirely different but not as identical. As such the common rejection order passed by the 1 st respondent is liable to be set aside in so far as petitioner’s case is concerned. Further, the reasons mentioned in the impugned order that the petitioner’s appointment is irregular as it is not in consonance with the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.524 as well as G.O.Ms.No.1 which are not at all applicable to petitioner’s case. 11. The petitioner has been working in the said school for the last more than 32 years and though she has got requisite qualifications, she has been paying a meager consolidated pay. The petitioner though was appointed into the Aided post with effect from 01.05.2000, till date, her appointment is not approved by absorbing into Aided post. The action of the 1st respondent in rejecting petitioner’s case along with other teachers is absolutely irrational and unjust. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Writ Petition. 12. Learned Government Pleader filed counter affidavit and submits as follows: That the Jyothi Bala Mandir School, Hyderabad, was admitted to Grant in aid by the Government during the year 1989 and the petitioner, who was said to have been appointed by the Management of the said school, is having a qualification of SSLC and TSLC (shortened course), i.e., Technical Teachers Training Certificate course in tailoring and embroidery in the year 1989. The management of the school had appointed the petitioner without following the procedure and without approval from the competent authority. 13. The management of the school had appointed the petitioner without following the procedure and without approval from the competent authority. 13. During the year 1999, the rules issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.524, Education dated 20.12.1988 were in operation. As per Rule 15 of the said G.O., the Selection Committee is to be constituted, make advertisements in local daily news papers, to appoint candidates who possess requisite qualifications, to have a nominee i.e., subject expert and two representatives from Education Department etc., to be followed for appointment of teaching and non teaching staff. Moreover, the candidate possesses the qualification of SSLC and Technical Teacher Training in Tailoring and Embroidery. The qualification required for a school teaching formal education is the Teacher Training Certificate in the curriculum subjects. 14. The Government on proposals from the management, have earlier examined and rejected the request of the petitioner vide Memo No.11154/PS.1/2004-1, dated 27.01.2005 duly observing that the managements have to follow the rules issued from time to time i.e., G.O.Ms.No.524, Edn., dated. 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dated.01.01.1994 in appointing the teachers in the aided institutions. 15. The Government also observed that the Government is providing grants to private institutions as per the provisions of Education Act .1/1982, but the Private Aided Managements appointing personal according to their likes and dislikes by violating the established procedure laid down in rules and such candidates are appointed without following the established procedure prescribed in rules. The petitioner in her affidavit mentioned the names of Smt. K. Lalitha Kumari and R. Sandhya Rani who have been considered by the Government in Memo No.22213/PS.1/2000-1, dated 26.09.2002. The candidature of the said candidates was considered based on the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No.75, Edn. (PS.II) Department, dated 23.09.2002 and the said G.O. stipulates that the post should have been sanctioned by the competent authority as per teacher pupil ratio and the candidate must possess the qualifications as prescribed for each category of post etc., Since the above candidates have fulfilled the criteria, the Government have considered the appointments in Memo dated 26.09.2002. 16. Adherence to the rules in public employment is a basic feature of Constitution and since the rule of law is the core hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among the qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. 16. Adherence to the rules in public employment is a basic feature of Constitution and since the rule of law is the core hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among the qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh & others vs. Deshraj, (2007) 1 SCC 257 held that: “the appointments made without following the Constitutional scheme of equality under Article 14 & 16, would be illegal and void ab initio. The Court further held that in the question of regularization of such employees by reason of any policy adopted by the State is impermissible in law.” 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation Jabalpur vs. Om Prakash Dubey, (2007) 1 SCC 373 held that: “Para 11: The question which, thus arises for consideration would be: Is there any distinction between “irregular appointment” and “illegal appointment”? The distinction between the two terms is apparent. In the event, the appointment is made in total disregard of the Constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one.” Therefore, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition. 18. The petitioner filed reply to the counter reiterating the contents of the writ petition without any new issue. FINDINGS OF THE COURT: 19. A perusal of record shows that the petitioner is seeking appointment and absorption into aided post and the same was rejected by the first respondent. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. Writ Petition is filed in the year 2005. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner’s age was 55 years. The contention of the respondent in rejecting the petitioner’s relief is that, the managements have to follow the rules issued from time to time i.e., G.O.Ms.No.524, Edn., dated. 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dated.01.01.1994 in appointing the teachers in the aided Institutions. 20. Petitioner was initially appointed by the Management of her school without the approval of the competent authority. The appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools functioning under private management, were governed by G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20.12.1988. Said G.O.Ms.No.524 was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dt.01.01.1994. 20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dated.01.01.1994 in appointing the teachers in the aided Institutions. 20. Petitioner was initially appointed by the Management of her school without the approval of the competent authority. The appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff of the schools functioning under private management, were governed by G.O.Ms.No.524, dated 20.12.1988. Said G.O.Ms.No.524 was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dt.01.01.1994. At present G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dt. 1.1.1994 is in force. As per the said G.Os, selection committee should be constituted, the post should be advertised in local Newspapers and the candidate should be sponsored by the employment exchange. The appointment of such candidates through the selection committee should be approved by the competent authority. 21. The said recruitment process indicates that if any candidate seeks absorption to the aided post, the above procedure has to be followed. In so far as petitioner’s case is concerned, no such procedure is followed. In the said apparent facts on record, the petitioner’s appointment itself is without following any rules. As such, the petitioner does not have any right to ask absorption into the aided post. 22. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner herself in her pleadings pleaded as follows and the same are re-produced as under: : “The management submitted a representation to consider my case for appointing me in aided post. Keeping in view of my long service as SGBT Teacher, the Director of School Education addressed a letter to the Government in the month of March 1991 in appointing me in the grant-in-aid post. In the said letter the Director has categorically stated that in view of the fact that I am having a long service, exemption may be granted to hold the post of SGBT, but the Government did not pass any orders.” The above said para reflects that for the post of SGBT, the petitioner does not have requisite qualifications. Based on her only long standing service, the school management is seeking exemption for grant-in-aid post. When the petitioner herself clearly states that she does not have requisite qualification for the post of SGBT, only on the ground of long standing service, she cannot be considered for grant-in-aid post. 23. The contention of the petitioner is that on several occasions, representations were made requesting the 3rd respondent to consider her case for approval and absorption in Aided post. 23. The contention of the petitioner is that on several occasions, representations were made requesting the 3rd respondent to consider her case for approval and absorption in Aided post. She further contends that the said representations were made by her along with other teachers whose cases are also similar to her. While so, two other teachers namely, Smt. K.Lalitha Kumar (SGBT Teacher) and R. Sandhya Rani (SGBT Teacher), working under the same Management at Vidyanagar, were considered by the 1st respondent and orders were passed directing the Commissioner and Director of School Education for absorption of the said two teachers from un- aided to aided, but her case was rejected. 24. It is pertinent to mention here that the candidature of the said candidates was considered based on the rules issued in G.O.Ms. No.75, Edn. (PS.II) Department, dated 23.09.2002 and the said G.O. stipulates that the post should have been sanctioned by the competent authority as per teacher pupil ratio and the candidate must possess the qualifications as prescribed for each category of post etc., Since the above candidates have fulfilled the criteria, the Government have considered the appointments in Memo dated 26.09.2002, whereas the petitioner passed Teacher Training Certificate course in the year 1989. Subsequently, she passed Professional Advancement Test for special teachers in the year 1990. Further, Professional Advancement for SGPT in the year 1991. Already petitioner’s case was examined and rejected the case of the petitioner vide Govt. Memo No.11154/PS.1/2004-1, dated 27.1.2005 duly observing that the managements have to follow the rules issued from time to time i.e. G.O.Ms.No.524, Edn., dt.20.12.1988 and G.O.Ms.No.1 Edn., dt. 1.1.1994 in appointing the teachers in aided Institutions. 25. The Government also observed that the Government are providing grants to private Institutions as per the provisions of Education Act 1/1982, but the private aided managements are appointing personnel according to their likes and dislikes by violating the established procedure laid down in the rules and such candidates are appointed without following the established procedure prescribed in the rules. 26. In the light of the judgments relied upon by the respondents the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh & others (1 st supra) held that the appointments made without following the Constitutional scheme of equality under Article 14 & 16, would be illegal and void ab initio. 26. In the light of the judgments relied upon by the respondents the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh & others (1 st supra) held that the appointments made without following the Constitutional scheme of equality under Article 14 & 16, would be illegal and void ab initio. The Hon’ble Court further held that in the question of regularization of such employees by reason of any policy adopted by the State is impermissible in law.” The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Municipal Corporation Jabalpur (2 nd supra) observed that, in the event, the appointment is made in total disregard of the Constitutional scheme as also the recruitment rules framed by the employer, which is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the recruitment would be an illegal one. The dictum laid in the above two cases squarely applies to the petitioner’s case in rejecting her prayer. 27. Having regard to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for respective parties and in view of the dictum laid in the above said judgments, this Court is of the considered view that once the petitioner herself seeking exemption for absorption into grant-in-aid post, that itself is enough to say that she does not have requisite qualification and the same is the cause of rejection of her case. Not only that, her appointment is also not in a proper manner as per the rules in force. Moreover, when the petitioner does not have requisite qualification for grant-in- aid post, her mere long standing service cannot be considered for approval of her appointment and absorption into the aided post. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 28. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.