LexGOVT. OF A. P. & ORS. versus SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
(2011] 11 S.C.R. 170
GOVT. OF A. P. & ORS.
v.
SRI SEVADAS VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL & ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9541 of 2007)
SEPTEMBER 06, 2011
[ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH AND SURINDER
SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.)
SERVICE LAW:
Private Schools - Grant-in-aid posts - Filling up of -
State of Andhra Pradesh Memo No. 1280/COSEIA212004-4
dated 20. 10. 2004 imposing ban on filling up of existing
vacancies - Held: The Memo was issued after the schools
0
had been given permission to fill up the vacant posts - It was
not given retrospective effect - Therefore, no interference is
called for with the judgments of the High Court that the ban
would not be applicable to the recruitment process already
initiated by the management of the private schools nor would
E the rationalization process apply to such schools.
Writ petitions were filed befC?re the High Court
challenging the Memo No.1280/COSE/A2/2004-4 dated
20th October, 2004, issued by the State Government of
A.P., by which ban was imposed on the filling up of
F existing vacancies in the aided posts of teachers where
the recruitment process had already been initiated by the
management of the private schools. In some cases, a
further prayer was made that the authorities concerned
be also restrained from transferring the teachers from one
G school to another by declaring them surplus and to
release the amount of salaries payable to the teachers
appointed against the aided posts. The Single Judge of
the High Court declared that the said ban would not be
applicable to the recruitment process already initiated by
H
170
GOVT. OF A. P. & ORS. v. SRI SEVADAS
171
VIDYAMANDIR HIGH SCHOOL
the management of the private schools for filling up the
A
vacant aided posts of teachers prior to the cq!fling into
effect of the Memo in question and gave a direction to the
authorities to allow the writ petitioners to complete the
process of selection. The appeal filed by the State
Government were dismissed by the Division Bench of the s
High Court. The Division Bench also quashed the
exercise of rationalization undertaken by the Government
in furtherance of the interim order dated 31.10.2005
together with directions contained in letter dated
03.11.2005, and gave the liberty to the State Government c
to undertake a fresh exercise of rationalization which
might lead to certain teachers being declared surplus and
for their absorption. Aggrieved, the State Government
filed the special leave petitions.
Dismissing the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1. No interference is called for with the
judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High
Court impugned in these special leave petitions. There
D
is no dispute that the Memo dated 20.10.2004, imposing
E
a ban on recruitment to grant-in-aid posts was issued
after the schools in question had been given permission
by the State authorities to fill up the vacant posts. There
is also no dispute that the said Memo was not given
retrospective effect so as to negate the approval already
F
given for filling up the grant-in-aid posts. The State
Government and its authorities could not, therefore,
contend that the rationalization process which had been
introduced, would also apply in respect of the private
aided schools, where the process of recruitment had
G
already been commenced pursuant to the approval
granted earlier. Furthermore, even the approval which
was granted for filling up the vacant aided posts, had
been granted after due scrutiny as to the requirements
of the schools in question. It is well-settled that H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 11 S.C.R.
A administrative orders are prospective in nature, unless
they are expressly or by necessary implication made to
have retrospective effect. [Para 12-13] [179-A-F]
2. As regards SLP {C) Nos. 15231-32 of 2011 filed by
8 the State Government questioning the claim of a sweaper
and a gardener-cum-watchman for converting them as
employees on the last grade service and the salaqry
attached to such posts consequent upon their posts
having been admitted into the grant-in-aid scheme, the
C Singh Judge of the High Court allowed their claim holding
that. G.OMs. No. 259 dated 18.06.1993 was applicable to
their case. The Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the appeal of the State Government. It is in the
light of the finding of the Division Bench of the High
Court that findings of the Single Judge had not beenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.