ORDER : This writ petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following main prayer:- “…….to issue an appropriate writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of certiorari and call for records relating to and connected with Memo No.12637/P.S.II/2004 Education (S.E.P.S.II) Department dated 29.06.2006 of the 1 st respondent and quash or set aside the decision contained therein and consequently direct the respondents to extend the benefit of absorption to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2001 as extended to Smt.Y.Sivaparvathi and Smt.V.Srilaxmi vide the Memo No.24383/PS.1/2002-1 dated 10.02.2003 and to direct the respondents to grant full pay and allowance to the petitioner from the date of absorption with all consequential benefits and pass such order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case……” Brief case of the petitioner :- 2. As claimed by the petitioner, she initially joined as Secondary Grade Teacher in an un-aided post at S.G.V.R High School, Perecherla, Guntur District on 25.08.1998, after following the procedural pre-requisites, including the recommendation of Staff Selection Committee vide Resolution dt: 03.01.1998, along with two other Teachers. In the said S.G.V.R. High School, Perecherla, a vacancy arose due to the retirement of Sri B.Buchi Ramaiah on 30.12.2000. Consequently, from 01.01.2001 onwards a vacancy in the Secondary Grade Teacher post in grant-in-aid category emerged in the petitioner’s working school. It is also stated that Government Authorities vide Memo No.24383/P.S.1/2002-1, dt:10.2.2003 clarified and requested the 2 nd Respondent to approve the absorption, wherein the petitioner’s name along with 3 others was included. 3. It is further contended that the Government also agreed to the proposals of the 2 nd respondent for absorption of three Teachers. Out of the three Teachers, in respect of two Teachers, the Government absorbed them by taking into consideration the dates of vacancies arising in the aided posts. But, so far as the petitioner is concerned no specific date of her absorption was mentioned. The petitioner asserted that the 3 rd respondent through proceedings vide L.Dis.No.916/B1/2002 dt:14.06.2003, approved her appointment in respect of aided post from 23.04.2003 onwards. And also the petitioner was directed to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of two (2) years, during which, she was paid stipend instead of regular salary by applying the G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (P.S-1) Department dt: 16.08.2001. 4. And also the petitioner was directed to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of two (2) years, during which, she was paid stipend instead of regular salary by applying the G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (P.S-1) Department dt: 16.08.2001. 4. It is also claimed by the petitioner that, to resolve her grievance, she preferred a representation to the respondent authorities. However, the 1 st Respondent vide Memo No.12637/P.S.II/2004, dt: 29.06.2006, rejected her request. The petitioner further contends that although the said aided post fell vacant from 01.01.2001, she was not absorbed from the said date. 5. The petitioner also states that, in the aforesaid Memo issued by respondent No.1, the date of absorption of the petitioner is not mentioned. However, the other two teachers recommended by Respondent No.2 were absorbed with effect from the date of the vacancy. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 was directed to approve the case of the petitioner and two others for absorption as referred by him. Even though, she worked as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the aforesaid unaided School from 26.08.1988, due to her appointment to aided post w.e.f. 23.04.2004 i.e. date of absorption, she has to undergo apprenticeship training for a period of two years as per G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (PS-1) Department, dated 16.08.2001, for which, she was paid a stipend instead of regular salary attached to the post. It is further case of the petitioner that, her representation to absorb her services in unaided SGT to aided SGT w.e.f. 01.01.2001, was rejected by respondent No.1 vide memo dated 29.06.2006. Aggrieved by the said Memo dated 29.06.2006 of respondent No.1, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. Brief case of the respondents:- 7. Per contra, respondent No.4 filed counter affidavit, wherein, it is admitted by the factum of initial joining of the petitioner in the un-aided post on 25.08.1998 after the approval of the Staff Selection Commission. It is also stated that one aided post of the Secondary Grade Teacher has fallen vacant with effect from 01.01.2001 due to the retirement of Sri Buchi Ramaiah, Secondary Grade Teacher, on 31.12.2000 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Furthermore, the counter affidavit states that the Management of the School submitted proposals for seeking permission to absorb the petitioner into the aided post of Second Grade Teacher to the District Authorities. Furthermore, the counter affidavit states that the Management of the School submitted proposals for seeking permission to absorb the petitioner into the aided post of Second Grade Teacher to the District Authorities. The District Authorities in turn forwarded proposals vide letter Rc.No.6611/B2/2001 dated 06.02.2002 to the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur. It is further stated that, the said proposals reached to the Director of School Education, A.P at Hyderabad through letter Rc.No.916/B1/2002, dated 10.03.2002. 8. The counter affidavit also discloses that, as per the instructions of the Government in Memo No.24383/PS-1/2002 Letter-1, dated 10.02.2003, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur also issued proceedings vide Rc.No.916/B1/2002 dated 22.04.2003, whereby permitting the Management of the School, to absorb the petitioner into the aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher. Further, the proceedings dated 23.04.2003 were issued by the correspondent of the school, absorbing the unaided services of the petitioner into the aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The counter affidavit states that the petitioner joined in the aided post on 23.04.2003. 9. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner had to undergo apprenticeship as per G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 16.08.2001, which was issued before the date of her absorption. As such, the consolidated pay as claimed by the petitioner cannot be fulfilled. The counter affidavit supported the purport of impugned orders, under the shelter of G.O.Ms.No.100 Education dated 16.08.2001 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 10. Heard Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Conversely, the learned Assistant Government Pleader while vociferously raising counter assertions, supported the orders under challenge. 12. This Court has perused the material on record. Consideration of the Court 13. Apparently, the respondents in their counter have not disputed the factum that the petitioner initially joined in the unaided post of Teacher on 25.08.1998 at Perecherla through a duly constituted Staff Selection Committee, in consonance with the rules in vogue i.e. G.O.M.S.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994. Further, it is also not disputed that an unaided post fell vacant from 01.01.2001 onwards due to the retirement of Sri Buchi Ramaiah, Secondary Grade Teacher on 31.12.2000, upon attaining the age of superannuation. 14. Further, it is also not disputed that an unaided post fell vacant from 01.01.2001 onwards due to the retirement of Sri Buchi Ramaiah, Secondary Grade Teacher on 31.12.2000, upon attaining the age of superannuation. 14. In fact, as stated supra the Management of the petitioner school also submitted proposals for according permission to absorb the petitioner into the aided post of Secondary Grade Teacher. The said proposals are rooted through all the hierarchal levels of the respondent Government authorities with all their positive remarks. At last, the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Memo no. 24383/P.S.1/2002-1, dated 10.02.2003 clarified and also requested the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad, to approve the absorption cases, wherein, the writ petitioner's name was explicitly listed at S.No.1. Consequently, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur in R.C.No.916-B1- 2002 dated 22.04.2003 also accorded permission to absorb the petitioner from unaided post to aided post as a Second Grade Teacher consequent to the retirement of Sri Buchi Ramaiah. 15. There is no dispute that, all three candidates including the petitioner herein, were appointed in the unaided posts of SGT/Assistant in different schools, by duly following the procedure prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education, dated 01.01.1994. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the aforesaid unaided School on 25.08.1998. Subsequently, they were absorbed into aided posts in their respective schools. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she has not been absorbed in aided post from the date of arising of vacancy in the aforesaid School, even though she has been working in unaided post since 25.08.1988. 16. In the Memo dated 10.02.2003 issued by Respondent No.1, a reference was made with regard to the letter dated 02.12.2002 received from Respondent No.2 stating that, the Government had issued orders for absorbing three unaided Teachers into aided posts i.e., 1) Smt. P. Lakshmi Sunitha, SGT i.e. petitioner herein, 2) Smt Y. Shiva Parvathi, with effect from the date of arising vacancy and 3) Smt. V. Srilakshmi, SGT with effect from 04.12.2000. And in respect of the petitioner herein, though the date of vacancy of aided post arose w.e.f. 01.01.2001, it was not specifically mentioned. 17. Subsequent to the representation submitted by the petitioner, to consider her case for absorption from the date of arising of vacancy, a Memo dated 29.06.2006 was issued by Respondent No.1 rejecting the case of the petitioner. And in respect of the petitioner herein, though the date of vacancy of aided post arose w.e.f. 01.01.2001, it was not specifically mentioned. 17. Subsequent to the representation submitted by the petitioner, to consider her case for absorption from the date of arising of vacancy, a Memo dated 29.06.2006 was issued by Respondent No.1 rejecting the case of the petitioner. The rejection was based on the ground that it was not feasible to consider her case in view of Rule 4 of Act 2/1994 and instructions issued in U.O.No.24714-A/224/A3/P.C.III, dated 21.08.1998. 18. In fact, the absorption of the petitioner from an unaided post to aided post, cannot by any stretch of imagination, be considered as a new selection, that would justify the official respondents placing her under apprenticeship in terms of the Sub-Rule (4-8) to Rule 12 of the Rules framed by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 1. Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994, by reason of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.M.S. No. 180 Education, dated 29.12.2000 and the subsequent amendment made thereto by reason of the orders issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.100 Education dated 16.08.2001. The absorption of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post has been made in accordance with the Rules framed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994. Furthermore, the petitioner's initial selection for the unaided post was conducted in compliance with the said Rules, following the due process of recruitment by a duly constituted Staff Selection Committee which is a condition precedent for her absorption from the unaided post to aided post. Thus, the selection of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post, cannot be treated as a new selection at all. 19. In fact the counter affidavit of the 4 th respondent, does not dispute the fact that, the other similarly situated Teachers, to that of the petitioner were absorbed in aided posts with effect from the date of arising vacancy only. 20. It is trite to note that, admittedly the writ petitioner is not seeking for fresh appointment through the instant lis. Rather, she is requesting that the benefit of absorption be extended to her with effect from 01.01. 2001, as extended to similarly situated persons based on the Principle of Parity. 20. It is trite to note that, admittedly the writ petitioner is not seeking for fresh appointment through the instant lis. Rather, she is requesting that the benefit of absorption be extended to her with effect from 01.01. 2001, as extended to similarly situated persons based on the Principle of Parity. 21 It is apt to mention that, even as against the names of other two candidates, who were absorbed along with the petitioner, the date of their absorption is clearly mentioned and recommended from the date of arising of vacancy. The petitioner should not be placed at a disadvantage simply because respondent No.2 failed to provide the date of vacancy/absorption to the State Government. 22. The petitioner's counsel asserted that the case of the petitioner squarely falls within the scope of the Judgment in Z.J.P Prabhad Bose Vs State of A.P dated 17.11.2003 in WP No. 11332 of 2002, wherein, the learned Single Judge of composite High Court at Hyderabad, after extensively appreciating the similar facts and circumstances as well as the G.O.Ms.No.100 Education (PS.1) Department dt: 16.08.2001 along with its relevant materials and procedure in vogue, had held that:- “ The Respondent shall treat the absorption of the petitioner from unaided post to aided post, as having been made in accordance with the Rules issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1. Education (P.S.2), dated 1-1-1994 and not G.O.Ms.Nos.180, Education, dated 29-12-2000 and G.O.Ms.No.100, Education dated 16-8-2001, though he was absorbed when the said G.Os, were in existence”. 23. The above dictum also followed by another learned Single Judge of Erstwhile High Court of A.P at Hyderabad in W.P No.17593 of 2003 orders dt:19.08.2004. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the orders dated 03.11.2004 of the Common High Court Judicature at Hyderabad, in W.P No.24319 of 2003 & Batch. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner specifically pointed out that, one Smt.Y.Shiva Pravathi, who has placed at Serial No.2, in the very same Memo No.24383/PS.1/2002-1 letter dated 10.02.2003, where the petitioner herein Smt. P.Lakshmi Sunitha stands at Serial No.1 only filed the said lis, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court after appreciating all the facts and circumstances, was pleased to allow the said writ petition way back on 03.11.2004 itself. It is also brought to the notice of this court, that the Respondent Authorities implemented the Orders dt: 03.11.2004 made in W.P No. 24319 of 2003 of this Hon’ble Court by the 3 rd Respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.4081/B2/2000 dated 20.01.2005 also. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the orders dated 11.12.2009, made in W.P No.805 of 2004 instituted by one Smt.N.Sandya Rani, wherein, she had challenged the date of absorption into the aided post, the time scale without reducing the salary, etc. The learned counsel further had drawn the attention of this Court to the reasons arrived by the learned Single Judge of the Common High Court. 26. In fact, against the orders dated 11.12.2009 in W.P No.805 of 2004, the State had instituted Writ Appeal No.202 of 2012, before the Hon’ble Division Bench of Erstwhile High Court at Hyderabad, wherein, the Division Bench by arriving at unequivocal findings, confirmed the orders of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Appeal vide orders dated 22.08.2003. The Division Bench after appreciating all the relevant G.Os, etc had held as under:- “……As far as the issue of absorption against aided post from a prior date is concerned, it is to be seen that Section 2 of Act 9 of 2000 makes it, clear that an employee of a private aided educational institution is entitled to count his/her service from the date of approval of his/her appointment in a post duly admitted to grant-in-aid……” “….It is to be seen that in G.O.Ms. No.75 dated 23.09.2002, a distinction was drawn between appointments made by private aided institutions as per procedure under clause 6 and absorption of qualified unaided staff already working in such private aided institutions under clause 7. Clauses 6 and 7 of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002 were extracted by the learned single Judge and discussed in detail. Under clause 6, the payment procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 16.08.2001 is to be applied only for those persons who were appointed directly in the vacant posts as per the recruitment procedure. No such condition was prescribed under clause 7 for those who were already working in unaided posts and who were absorbed against the aided posts. It is also pertinent to note that sub- rule (4-a) of Rule-12 of the Rules of 1993, which clearly indicates that it has application to only those who are freshly selected and appointed. No such condition was prescribed under clause 7 for those who were already working in unaided posts and who were absorbed against the aided posts. It is also pertinent to note that sub- rule (4-a) of Rule-12 of the Rules of 1993, which clearly indicates that it has application to only those who are freshly selected and appointed. This Rule has no application to the teacher, such as the 1 st respondent herein who was already working in an unaided post from 1992. The apprenticeship is meant only for freshers who have no experience and such procedure which is applicable to the freshers cannot be made applicable to the 1st respondent herein, who is in service from 1992. As such, Rule (4-a) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 1999 has no application to the 1st respondent herein. The Commissioner and Director of School Education without considering the issue on proper perspective, issued proceedings dated 24.09.2002 and equated the persons covered by clause 7 to those covered by clause 6 of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 23.09.2002 and made applicable to them the payment procedure prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 16.08.2001 to the persons who are already in service…..” 27. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to the notice of this court the recent orders dated 29.08.2024 made in W.P.7394 of 2005, concerning the issue of not counting the unaided service of Secondary Grade Assistant unaided teachers. The Learned Single Judge by following the Hon’ble Division Bench Judgment made in W.A.No.202 of 2012 referred supra pleased to allow the W.P No.7394 of 2005. 28. Yet another reason is the ‘Doctrine of Parity’. In the service law, it refers to the principle of treating similarly situated individuals equally. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. D.G.O.F. Employees Assn. (2023) , upheld the application of the doctrine of parity in pay scales for similarly placed employees and the relevant para reads as under:- “In this case, the court considered the historical similarity in pay scales between employees in the Ordnance Factory Board and those in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and equivalent posts in the Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (AFHCS) Cadre. The court held that the respondents were entitled to the same pay scale as similarly placed employees in the CSS and AFHCS Cadre, applying the doctrine of parity…” 29. The court held that the respondents were entitled to the same pay scale as similarly placed employees in the CSS and AFHCS Cadre, applying the doctrine of parity…” 29. In view of the above facts and circumstances involved in the lis, coupled with the catena of decisions as clearly stated supra, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the case of the writ petitioner comes under the scope of the above legal position. 30. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned Memo dated 29.06.2006 is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to approve the absorption of the petitioner in the vacant aided SGT post from the date of arising of such vacancy i.e., 01.01.2001, and the Respondents are directed to compute and disburse the service benefits due payable to the petitioner at the earliest. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.