O. Rama Mohan Reddy vs Manager, R.C.M. Schools, Diocese of Cuddapah Society and Another

Y.V. Narayana, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioner questions the action of the 2nd respondent in not approving his appointment as B.Ed. Assistant w.e.f. 1-7-1992 and seeks a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to approve his appointment as B.Ed. Assistant with effect from 1-7-1992. It is the contention of the petitioner that by virtue of the orders passed by the 2nd respondent on 28-12-1996, under which the selection of the petitioner was approved, the petitioner had to lose his seniority as persons who are juniors to him and who are interviewed along with the petitioner in the year 1995 were appointed much prior to the appointment of the petitioner and thereby he became junior to those candidates.

To appreciate the contention of the petitioner, a brief story of the case is relevant to be mentioned. The petitioner was initially appointed on 1-7-1992 as B.Ed. Assistant in the 1st respondent-school in an unaided post and he has been continuously working as such till to-day. But, since the said appointment was not made by following the Rules in vogue, the authorities have issued a notification for filling up of the said vacancy, along with other vacancies, in the year 1995. But when no call letter was sent to the petitioner on the ground that he was over-aged, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 5326 of 1995 and obtained an interim direction and pursuant to the said interim direction, he was permitted to sit in the interview which was held on 26-3-1995. Subsequently, he was selected but when the authorities did not publish results, he filed W.P.M.P. No. 9047/1995 and this Court directed the authorities to publish results. However, it seems, no approval was accorded by the 2nd respondent for his selection on the ground that the writ petition filed by the petitioner, in which the question of over-age of the petitioner was to be decided, was still pending. But, meanwhile, the 2nd respondent approved the selection of other 25 candidates, who were interviewed along with the petitioner, on 30-4-1995. Subsequently on 30-8-1995, this Court allowed the writ petition filed by petitioner and directed the respondents to accord necessary permission for the selection/appointment of the petitioner as B.Ed. Assistant, It was only after the pronouncement of the judgment by this Court on 30-8-1995 that the 2nd respondent could approve the petitioner''s selection by order dated 28-12-1996. It was in those circumstances, the present writ petition came to be filed.

The process of selections and appointments to the teaching staff in private schools is regulated by the Government by issuing G.O.Ms. No. 1 dated 1-1-1994. As per the said G.O., the management of the school has to obtain prior permission from the competent authority i.e., District Educational Officer in respect of Aided Elementary/Upper Primary Schools for filling up of sanctioned teaching posts, inviting candidates from the employment exchange and also through paper publication and conduct interviews by constituting a Staff selection Committee in which the departmental nominee who is not below the rank of Deputy Educational Officer should be a member. The list of candidates so selected by the Staff Selection Committee will have to be sent to the District Educational Officer for according approval. It is only after the approval is made by the District Educational Officer, the management is entitled to issue appointment orders in favour of selected candidates.

In the case on hand, the petitioner, no doubt, was appointed on 1-7-1992 and he has been working continuously since then. But, the post in which the petitioner is working is sanctioned only on 2-9-1993. Be that as it may, the appointment of the petitioner made on 1-7-1992 was found to be irregular as the procedure prescribed therefore was not followed while selecting the petitioner. Therefore, notification had to be issued by the authorities in the year 1995 for the purpose of filling up the vacancy in which the petitioner was working in accordance with the Rules. The trouble started from then onwards when the petitioner also sought to appear in the interview. However, the objection taken by the respondents that the petitioner was over-aged as on the date of notification, was overruled by this Court subsequently on 30-8-1995. As already noticed, the selection of the 25 candidates who attended the interview along with the petitioner was approved on 30-4-1995 itself whereas the (selections of) petitioner was approved only on 20-12-1996. The delay in approval was only on account of pendency of the writ petition in this Court which had to be filed by the, petitioner only due to the objection raised by the respondents. In such circumstances, when the said objection is subsequently held to be not tenable, the respondents, so as to maintain the balance and equality among all those candidates whose selection was made on one and the same day ought to have approved the selection of the petitioner also with effect from the date on which the approval to the selection of other 25 candidates was accorded. Thus, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent went wrong in according approval to the petitioner''s selection with effect from 20-12-1996 when he is entitled to have his selection approved with effect from 30-4-1995, the date on which the approval to other candidates was accorded.

The petitioner, however, contends that the respondents ought to have accorded sanction with effect from 1-7-1992 itself, i.e., the date of his initial appointment. But, I am not inclined to agree with his contention for the reason that when the very appointment itself was found to be not in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor, the same is not an appointment at all in the eye of law. Approval will be accorded, as per G.O.Ms. No. 1, only if the selection is made in accordance with the procedure prescribed. In this case, since it was found that the initial appointment of the petitioner was made without following the procedure, the said appointment is not an appointment in the eye of law. Thus, for all these reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to have his selection approved with effect from 30-4-1995, i.e., the date on which approval to other 25 candidates was accorded. Accordingly, I direct the respondents to issue revised orders to the petitioner.

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.