THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR
W.P.Nos.34018, 33754, 34058 and 34059 of 2011
W.P.No.287 of 2012
1. Heard both the counsel.
2. As common questions are involved in all these writ petitions, they are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
3. The petitioners herein are the applicants before the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. They filed O.A.Nos.7063, 7237, 7394, 774 and 8571 of 2011 seeking to declare the action of the Government in proposing to fill up 70% of the Secondary Grade Teacher vacancies first, from among the Graduates and Diploma Holders, and then filling up of 30% of vacancies from among the Diploma holders, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to proviso to Rule 7 of the A.P. Direct Recruitment of Teachers (Scheme of Selection) Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”), as amended by G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 29-01-2009. The Tribunal, vide its common order, dated 29-11-2011, disposed of the said O.As., by observing as follows:-
“In view of the interconnectivity of the entire litigation with the pending Civil Appeals before the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Writ Petitions which are pending before the Hon’ble High Court, it may not be desirable to take any decision in these matters by the Tribunal at this stage. It is necessary to await the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.Ps., and Hon’ble High Court in WPs. Accordingly, these OAs., be posted after the orders of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court. In case the applicants need further clarifications/orders at this stage, they may approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court in this regard.
With the above observations, the OAs., are disposed of.”
4. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petitions are filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as per the proviso to Rule 7 (1) of the Rules, 30% of the Secondary Grade Teacher posts are filled up exclusively from candidates possessing D.Ed qualification and the balance 70% of the posts are filled from common pool of candidates possessing B.Ed and D.Ed qualification.
6. The Tribunal did not decide the issue as to whether D.Ed qualified candidates have a first preferential consideration for 30% of the posts or whether B.Ed and D.Ed candidates are entitled for 70% of the posts, as first preferential consideration.
7. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that in the earlier batch of OAs., D.Ed candidates questioned the provisio to Rule 7 of the said Rules, but the Tribunal while upholding the said amendment, dismissed the O.As, against which, the applicants therein filed writ petitions before this Court and this Court suspended the proviso to Rule 7(1) of the said Rules against which, the matter was carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court stayed the orders of this Court and that is how Rule 7(1) modification to Rule 7(1) is in operation of the statute and, therefore, the Government is required to implement the said amended Rule 7. Thus, it is stated that as per the existing orders as on date, proviso to Rule 7 has to be implemented and whether the D.Ed candidates have preferential consideration to fill up first 30% posts of the Secondary Grade Teachers or not, is a matter to be decided by the Tribunal. But, the Tribunal declined to decide the said issue in view of the pendency of an earlier batch of writ petitions and the S.L.Ps. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and disposed of the O.As., as stated above.
8. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the writ petitioners have not made the persons, who are selected and appointed, as parties in the respective O.As and, therefore, in the event of accepting the contentions of the applicants, it may not be possible to set aside the selection of various candidates.
9. We are not inclined to express any opinion as it is for the respective parties to take appropriate steps before the Tribunal.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the validity and legality of Rule 7(1) is the subject matter of earlier batch of writ petitions and the S.L.Ps., but the mode of implementing Rule 7 is not the subject matter of pendency of writ petitions in the High Court.
11. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have decided the modality and working of Rule 7, in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion with regard to the contentions of either of the parties, we set aside the impugned orders and the writ petitions are allowed remitting the matter to the Tribunal to consider the contentions of either side and dispose of the O.As., on merits in accordance with law. We direct the Tribunal to dispose of the O.As., if pleadings are completed, as expeditiously as possible, without any undue delay. There shall be no order as to costs.
N.RAVI SHANKAR, J