Minority School Need Not Follow Reservation Roster When Appointing Candidate From Same Minority Community: AP High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of approval for an Attender appointed by a Christian minority school, holding that the reservation roster did not apply to his appointment as he belonged to the same minority community as the institution. The Court based its ruling on Rule 12(6) of G.O.Ms. No.1 dated 01.01.1994, which exempts minority educational institutions from...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of approval for an Attender appointed by a Christian minority school, holding that the reservation roster did not apply to his appointment as he belonged to the same minority community as the institution.
The Court based its ruling on Rule 12(6) of G.O.Ms. No.1 dated 01.01.1994, which exempts minority educational institutions from the rotation roster when selecting a candidate belonging to the concerned minority community.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Balaji Medamalli in a writ petition concerning the approval and regularisation of an Attender appointed by Church of South India (CSI) High School, a minority educational institution.
The Court weighed the petitioner's 26 years of service against the objection to his selection and directed regularisation within four months.
The Court observed:
"Upon perusal of the above rule, it is clear that the requirement of following the rule of reservation is exempted in respect of minority educational institutions where the management selects candidates belonging to the concerned minority community. In the present case, the petitioner belongs to the Christian minority community and was appointed by a minority institution. Therefore, the said rule has no application, and the appointment of the petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground of non-adherence to the roster meant for a BC-A (Woman) candidate."
The dispute arose over the rejection of the employee's claim for approval of his appointment against a regular aided vacancy.
The employee was initially appointed as an Attender in the Church of South India (CSI) High School against a vacancy caused by the retirement of another employee.
As the District Educational Officer (DEO), did not approve the appointment, the CSI High School approached the High Court seeking permission to fill the vacancy afresh.
Pursuant to the High Court's directions, the DEO permitted the CSI High School to fill the vacancy afresh. The management thereafter issued a recruitment notification, approached the Employment Exchange and circulated the notification through Churches of South India and Christian Minority Institutions. The employee underwent a written test and oral interview, was selected and appointed as an aided Attender against the regular aided vacancy.
The school then submitted a proposal seeking approval of his appointment. As no orders were passed, the employee approached the High Court along with similarly situated employees, seeking consideration of their cases for absorption against aided vacancies. The Court directed the authorities to consider their cases subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions.
The DEO subsequently rejected the employee's claim citing non-compliance with the recruitment rules. The matter again reached the High Court, which directed the DEO to consider the pending proposal for approval. When the DEO again rejected the claim, the employee initiated contempt proceedings. During their pendency, the authorities issued another order rejecting approval, which was challenged in the present writ petition.
The authorities contended that the vacancy was earmarked for a BC-A (Woman) candidate and that the school had failed to follow the prescribed reservation roster. They further contended that the appointment had been made without prior permission from the competent authority.
The Court rejected the roster objection, holding that Rule 12(6) of G.O.Ms. No.1 dated 01.01.1994 applied because the employee belonged to the Christian minority community and had been selected by a Christian minority institution. It therefore held that the vacancy being earmarked for a BC-A (Woman) candidate could not be a ground to reject his appointment.
The authorities also objected that the recruitment notification had not been published in newspapers as required under the Rules. The Court addressed this objection, observing:
“Thus, in the instant case, though the publication was not made but as the educational institution, being a minority educational institute, had published the notification in the Churches of concerned community to invite applications from the candidates belonging to the said community. Mere deviation from the prescribed procedure regarding publication of the notification cannot, by itself, be said to vitiate the appointment, particularly in view of the petitioner's long and uninterrupted continuance in service against the post to which he was selected and appointed.”
The Court found that the impugned order overlooked the subsequent selection conducted pursuant to the DEO's permission and instead relied on the petitioner's earlier temporary appointment.
Noting that the approval proposal had remained pending since 2003 and that the petitioner had continued against the aided vacancy for about 26 years, the Court said, “in such circumstances, after permitting the petitioner to work for about 26 years against an aided vacancy, the respondents cannot, at this stage, deny him the benefit of approval and absorption.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the impugned proceedings and directed the respondents to regularise the employee's services within four months.
Case Title: M. Rajasekhar v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 24719 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Kasa Jaganmohan Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for School Education