The Andhra Pradesh High Court has directed the authorities to regularise the services of M Rajasekhar, an Attender appointed in a minority educational institution. Justice Balaji Medamalli held that the petitioner’s appointment could not be rejected on the ground that the roster requirement for a BC-A (Woman) vacancy had not been followed, as the petitioner belonged to the Christian minority community.
Rajasekhar was initially appointed temporarily as an Attender. Later, on December 17, 2003, the competent authority permitted the school management to fill an aided Attender post. Following the permission, the management conducted a written test and oral interview on December 28, 2003, and selected Rajasekhar on December 30, 2003.
The management submitted a proposal seeking approval of his appointment on the same day. However, the proposal remained pending. After several rounds of litigation and reconsideration, the authorities rejected his claim again, leading him to approach the High Court in the present proceedings.
The respondents argued that the prescribed recruitment procedure had not been followed and that the vacancy was reserved for a BC-A (Woman) candidate. They also contended that the school had not followed the required procedure for publishing the vacancy.
The High Court examined Rule 12(6) of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated January 1, 1994. The rule provides an exemption from the roster requirement for minority educational institutions when selecting a candidate belonging to the concerned minority community. Since Rajasekhar belonged to the Christian minority community, the Court held that the roster objection could not be used to reject his appointment.
The Court also noted that the management had obtained permission before conducting the 2003 selection process. It had approached the Employment Exchange and Christian minority institutions, conducted the selection, and submitted the approval proposal on December 30, 2003.
The Court observed:
“A conjoint reading of the proceedings dated 17.12.2003, the management’s letter dated 18.12.2003, and the communication dated 30.12.2003 addressed to the Regional Joint Director of School Education clearly establishes that the petitioner was selected in the year 2003 pursuant to the permission granted by the District Educational Officer and that proposals were duly submitted for approval of the competent authority.”
Justice Balaji Medamalli held that the objections concerning the roster requirement and prior permission were unsustainable. The Court set aside the proceedings dated September 18, 2024, rejecting the petitioner’s claim.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed W.P. No. 24719 of 2024 and directed the respondents to regularise Rajasekhar’s services within four months from the date of receiving a copy of the order.
Case Title: M Rajasekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 24719 of 2024
