AP High Court Order on Transfers GO 54 and Show all Posts created under GO 144 and GO 91 in Transfers Counseling.
The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Srinivas Bobbili, Advocate for the Petitioners in both petitions and of GP for Education for the Respondents in both petitions, _the Court made the following
ORDER:
- By filing these petitions, writ petitioners seek this court to stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.54, School Edn (Services.II) Department, dated 12.10.2020, and consequential orders bearing Rc.No.13029/11/2020 EST-3, dated 14.10.2020, issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the above writ petitions.
- At the hearing, the petitioners' counsel, however, seeks this court to make an interim order directing the respondents to show all the posts created under G.O.Ms.No.144, Finance (HR.II) Department, dated 02.08.2016 (GO-144), and G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (Services.II) Department, dated 17.12.2016 (GO-91), in the ensuing teachers' transfer counseling.
- Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the Government Pleader for School Education.
- The petitioners are working as School Assistants in languages. They were initially appointed as SGTs and language pandits under DSCs and later they were promoted as School Assistants in the month of July, 2019. The petitioners are eligible for promotion to the post of School Assistants (Languages), as per G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 23.01.2009, and G.O.Ms.No.12, dated 23.01.2009. While so, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 05.02.2017, amending the rules by declaring that SGTs are not eligible for promotion to the post of School Asistant (Languages). The petitioners then approached the Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A.No.317 of 2017, which was allowed by directing the respondents to fill up all the vacancies available prior to the date of the amendment i.e.,G.O.Ms.No.15, dated 05.02.2017. The said judgment was upheld by the High Court by judgments, dated 03.10.2017 and 11.12.2018, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court by its order, dated 08.04.2019, while dismissing the SLP preferred by the respondents. The respondents promoted the petitioners as School Assistants in July, 2019. But as per the Rules in force, they should be promoted in the month of August, 2017 along with other similarly situated SGTs/Language Pandits Gr.II, who were promoted in the month of August, 2017. It is due to the fault of the respondents that the petitioners were promoted in the month of July, 2019 and the petitioners lost more than two years of service. By issuing GO-91, the respondents created 10224 posts of School Assistants (Languages). Even then respondents did not consider their case for promotion to the post of School Assistants (Languages). In fact, they were promoted in the month of July, 2019 against the posts created under GO-144. But due to the fault of the respondents, the petitioners lost more than two years service. By issuing G.O.Ms.No.91, School Education (Services.II) Department, dated 17.12.2018, respondents created 10224 posts of School Assistants (Languages). Even then, respondents did not consider their case for promotion to the post of School Assistant (Languages). In fact, they were promoted in the month of July, 2019 against the posts created under G.O.Ms.No.144 though by that time, further 10224 posts were created under G.O.Ms.No.91, dated 17.12.2018. By this action of the respondents, the petitioners were posted in the left over vacancies under GO-144, and they were not given the benefit of choosing the vacancies created under GO-91. The petitioners are entitled to be promoted in the month of August, 2017, along with their contemporaries. Due to their non- consideration, they lost the benefits of opting the places of their transfer.
- The Government Pleader does not deny the fact that the petitioners approached the Tribunal and were successful in getting a direction to the respondents, as stated above, and that the writ petition preferred by the respondents was dismissed confirming the order of the Administrative Tribunal and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, which was preferred by the respondents confirming the order of the Administrative Tribunal.
- It can be understood from the above admitted fact that the delay was only due to the respondents not acting in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the opportunity that they are entitled for with regard to the opting of the place of posting.
- The Government Pleader submits that until the petitioners complete two years service, as required by the guidelines for transfer of teachers, they cannot be included in the counseling, which is scheduled on 20.11.2020. But it is evident that the petitioners could not complete the two years service, only because they were being driven to court by the action of the respondents, which is found to be not in accordance with law.
Hence, this court opines that ends of justice would be met if the respondents are directed to show all the posts created under GO-144 and. GO-91 in the ensuing transfer counseling.
