//
you're reading...
legal issues

promotions – ban ?= The only grievance of the petitioners is that the ban that was imposed by the Government is in respect of recruitment but not for promotions and the same has been clarified in Memo dated 22.08.2005, which reads as under: “Government after careful examination of the matter referred by the Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad in the reference cited, hereby clarify that the prohibition imposed in Act-2 of 1994 and the ban orders in memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dt.20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre. In view of the above, the Director of School Education, AP., is hereby permitted to consider the case of promotion of Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, Grade-II, Telugu Pandit to Grade-I, Telugu Pandits per the normal Procedure.”

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

Deutsch: Siegel von Andhra Pradesh English: Se...

Image via Wikipedia

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWELFTH

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.18 and 97 of 2012

 

Between:

 

W.P. No.18 of 2012:

Peddu Vijaya Lakshmi

…      Petitioner

and

The Government of A.P.,

Rep.by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…      Respondents

W.P. No.97 of 2012:

Maddala Suvarna Raju

…      Petitioner

and

The Government of A.P.,

Rep.by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…      Respondents

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.18 and 97 of 2012

 

COMMON ORDER:

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject matter of both the writ petitions is one and the same, therefore, they may disposed of together.  Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

These writ petitions have been filed seeking for issuance of 
Writ of Mandamus
 declaring the action of the respondents in not approving the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster as per the clarification given by the Government in Memo No.8544/PS-1/2005-1, Education (SE-PS) Department, dated 22.08.2005, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to declare that the petitioners are entitled to approval of their promotion to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster with all consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W.P. No.18 of 2012 is one Smt.Peddu Vijaya Lakshmi working as Headmistress in Gandhi Vidyalaya (EM) High School Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and the petitioner in W.P. No.97 of 2012 is one Sri Maddala Suvarna Raju working as Headmaster in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

The first petitioner was appointed as School Assistant on 26.09.1989 in Gandhi Vidyalaya (EM) High School, Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in a regular sanctioned aided vacancy and thereafter, she was promoted as Headmistress in a clear sanctioned vacancy on 01.08.2005 in the above said School and till then she has been working as such.

The second petitioner was appointed as School Assistant on 17.11.1988 in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in a regular sanctioned aided vacancy and thereafter, he was promoted as Headmaster in a clear sanctioned vacancy on 01.08.2005 in the above said School and till then he has been working as such.

While the things stood thus, the 5th respondent sent proposal to the 4th respondent for approval of promotion of the petitioners and the 4th respondent in turn sent the same to the
3rd respondent, who returned the proposal with the instructions to resubmit the same after lifting of ban on promotions as clarified in Government Memo No.8544/PS-1/2005-2, dated 13.09.2005.  Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2 on 09.06.2009 and the same are pending without passing any orders.  Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the ban that was imposed by the Government was only in respect of the recruitment, at the relevant point of time, but not on the promotions, which has been clarified by the Government vide its Memo dated 22.08.2005.  Therefore, the action of the
3rd respondent in rejecting the proposal sent by the 5th respondent seeking approval of the promotion of the petitioners as Headmistress/Headmasters in the 5th respondent’s schools is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is a specific submission on the part of the petitioners that they have filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2.  Therefore,
the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record.

The only grievance of the petitioners is that the ban that was imposed by the Government is in respect of recruitment but not for promotions and the same has been clarified in Memo dated 22.08.2005, which reads as under:

“Government after careful examination of the matter referred by the Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad in the reference cited, hereby clarify that the prohibition imposed in Act-2 of 1994 and the ban orders in memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dt.20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre.

In view of the above, the Director of School Education, AP., is hereby permitted to consider the case of promotion of Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, Grade-II, Telugu Pandit to Grade-I, Telugu Pandits per the normal Procedure.”

From the above, it is clear that the Government clarified in the said memo that the prohibition and the ban orders imposed on 20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre.  Though the said memo is in respect of one Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, but in the said memo it is clarified that the ban imposed by the Government in the matter of recruitment on 20.10.2004 has no application in the case of promotion.  However, in these matters, aggrieved by the rejection proceedings dated 25.10.2005, passed by the 3rd respondent,
the petitioners filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2 and the same are pending.  Further, both the counsel represented that the respondents may be directed to consider the appeals, stated to have been filed by the petitioners.

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the appeals dated 09.06.2009, stated to have been filed by the petitioners before the respondents 1 and 2 on the aspect of approval of the promotion of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

Date: 03.01.2012

Note: Furnish C.C. in two days.

B/o.

LSK

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWELFTH

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.18 and 97 of 2012

 

Between:

 

W.P. No.18 of 2012:

Peddu Vijaya Lakshmi

…      Petitioner

and

The Government of A.P.,

Rep.by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…      Respondents

W.P. No.97 of 2012:

Maddala Suvarna Raju

…      Petitioner

and

The Government of A.P.,

Rep.by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…      Respondents

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.18 and 97 of 2012

 

COMMON ORDER:

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject matter of both the writ petitions is one and the same, therefore, they may disposed of together.  Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

These writ petitions have been filed seeking for issuance of 
Writ of Mandamus
 declaring the action of the respondents in not approving the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster as per the clarification given by the Government in Memo No.8544/PS-1/2005-1, Education (SE-PS) Department, dated 22.08.2005, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to declare that the petitioners are entitled to approval of their promotion to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster with all consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W.P. No.18 of 2012 is one Smt.Peddu Vijaya Lakshmi working as Headmistress in Gandhi Vidyalaya (EM) High School Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and the petitioner in W.P. No.97 of 2012 is one Sri Maddala Suvarna Raju working as Headmaster in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

The first petitioner was appointed as School Assistant on 26.09.1989 in Gandhi Vidyalaya (EM) High School, Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in a regular sanctioned aided vacancy and thereafter, she was promoted as Headmistress in a clear sanctioned vacancy on 01.08.2005 in the above said School and till then she has been working as such.

The second petitioner was appointed as School Assistant on 17.11.1988 in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in a regular sanctioned aided vacancy and thereafter, he was promoted as Headmaster in a clear sanctioned vacancy on 01.08.2005 in the above said School and till then he has been working as such.

While the things stood thus, the 5th respondent sent proposal to the 4th respondent for approval of promotion of the petitioners and the 4th respondent in turn sent the same to the
3rd respondent, who returned the proposal with the instructions to resubmit the same after lifting of ban on promotions as clarified in Government Memo No.8544/PS-1/2005-2, dated 13.09.2005.  Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2 on 09.06.2009 and the same are pending without passing any orders.  Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the ban that was imposed by the Government was only in respect of the recruitment, at the relevant point of time, but not on the promotions, which has been clarified by the Government vide its Memo dated 22.08.2005.  Therefore, the action of the
3rd respondent in rejecting the proposal sent by the 5th respondent seeking approval of the promotion of the petitioners as Headmistress/Headmasters in the 5th respondent’s schools is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is a specific submission on the part of the petitioners that they have filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2.  Therefore,
the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record.

The only grievance of the petitioners is that the ban that was imposed by the Government is in respect of recruitment but not for promotions and the same has been clarified in Memo dated 22.08.2005, which reads as under:

“Government after careful examination of the matter referred by the Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad in the reference cited, hereby clarify that the prohibition imposed in Act-2 of 1994 and the ban orders in memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dt.20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre.

In view of the above, the Director of School Education, AP., is hereby permitted to consider the case of promotion of Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, Grade-II, Telugu Pandit to Grade-I, Telugu Pandits per the normal Procedure.”

From the above, it is clear that the Government clarified in the said memo that the prohibition and the ban orders imposed on 20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre.  Though the said memo is in respect of one Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, but in the said memo it is clarified that the ban imposed by the Government in the matter of recruitment on 20.10.2004 has no application in the case of promotion.  However, in these matters, aggrieved by the rejection proceedings dated 25.10.2005, passed by the 3rd respondent,
the petitioners filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2 and the same are pending.  Further, both the counsel represented that the respondents may be directed to consider the appeals, stated to have been filed by the petitioners.

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the appeals dated 09.06.2009, stated to have been filed by the petitioners before the respondents 1 and 2 on the aspect of approval of the promotion of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

Date: 03.01.2012

Note: Furnish C.C. in two days.

B/o.

LSK

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWELFTH

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.18 and 97 of 2012

 

Between:

 

W.P. No.18 of 2012:

Peddu Vijaya Lakshmi

…      Petitioner

and

The Government of A.P.,

Rep.by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…      Respondents

W.P. No.97 of 2012:

Maddala Suvarna Raju

…      Petitioner

and

The Government of A.P.,

Rep.by its Secretary,

School Education Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

…      Respondents

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

 

W.P. No.18 and 97 of 2012

 

COMMON ORDER:

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the subject matter of both the writ petitions is one and the same, therefore, they may disposed of together.  Hence, they are being disposed of by this common order.

These writ petitions have been filed seeking for issuance of 
Writ of Mandamus
 declaring the action of the respondents in not approving the promotion of the petitioners to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster as per the clarification given by the Government in Memo No.8544/PS-1/2005-1, Education (SE-PS) Department, dated 22.08.2005, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to declare that the petitioners are entitled to approval of their promotion to the post of Headmistress/Headmaster with all consequential benefits.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner in W.P. No.18 of 2012 is one Smt.Peddu Vijaya Lakshmi working as Headmistress in Gandhi Vidyalaya (EM) High School Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District and the petitioner in W.P. No.97 of 2012 is one Sri Maddala Suvarna Raju working as Headmaster in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

The first petitioner was appointed as School Assistant on 26.09.1989 in Gandhi Vidyalaya (EM) High School, Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in a regular sanctioned aided vacancy and thereafter, she was promoted as Headmistress in a clear sanctioned vacancy on 01.08.2005 in the above said School and till then she has been working as such.

The second petitioner was appointed as School Assistant on 17.11.1988 in Noble High School, Machilipatnam, Krishna District in a regular sanctioned aided vacancy and thereafter, he was promoted as Headmaster in a clear sanctioned vacancy on 01.08.2005 in the above said School and till then he has been working as such.

While the things stood thus, the 5th respondent sent proposal to the 4th respondent for approval of promotion of the petitioners and the 4th respondent in turn sent the same to the
3rd respondent, who returned the proposal with the instructions to resubmit the same after lifting of ban on promotions as clarified in Government Memo No.8544/PS-1/2005-2, dated 13.09.2005.  Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2 on 09.06.2009 and the same are pending without passing any orders.  Hence, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the ban that was imposed by the Government was only in respect of the recruitment, at the relevant point of time, but not on the promotions, which has been clarified by the Government vide its Memo dated 22.08.2005.  Therefore, the action of the
3rd respondent in rejecting the proposal sent by the 5th respondent seeking approval of the promotion of the petitioners as Headmistress/Headmasters in the 5th respondent’s schools is illegal and arbitrary.

The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is a specific submission on the part of the petitioners that they have filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2.  Therefore,
the respondents may be directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and perused the material on record.

The only grievance of the petitioners is that the ban that was imposed by the Government is in respect of recruitment but not for promotions and the same has been clarified in Memo dated 22.08.2005, which reads as under:

“Government after careful examination of the matter referred by the Director of School Education, AP, Hyderabad in the reference cited, hereby clarify that the prohibition imposed in Act-2 of 1994 and the ban orders in memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4, dt.20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre.

In view of the above, the Director of School Education, AP., is hereby permitted to consider the case of promotion of Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, Grade-II, Telugu Pandit to Grade-I, Telugu Pandits per the normal Procedure.”

From the above, it is clear that the Government clarified in the said memo that the prohibition and the ban orders imposed on 20.10.2004 will not apply in cases of promotion of the candidates from one cadre to another higher cadre.  Though the said memo is in respect of one Smt.K.E.Snehalatha, but in the said memo it is clarified that the ban imposed by the Government in the matter of recruitment on 20.10.2004 has no application in the case of promotion.  However, in these matters, aggrieved by the rejection proceedings dated 25.10.2005, passed by the 3rd respondent,
the petitioners filed appeals before the respondents 1 and 2 and the same are pending.  Further, both the counsel represented that the respondents may be directed to consider the appeals, stated to have been filed by the petitioners.

In that view of the matter, without going into the merits of the case, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the appeals dated 09.06.2009, stated to have been filed by the petitioners before the respondents 1 and 2 on the aspect of approval of the promotion of the petitioners, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period two months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of.  There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

Date: 03.01.2012

Note: Furnish C.C. in two days.

B/o.

LSK

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,372 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: