WA/1398/2006 of GOVT OF A.P. REP BY ITS SEC TO GOVT SCHOOL EDU DEPTAND 3 Vs C.N.M.HIGH SCHOOL BESTAVARIPET PRAKASAM DISTRICT on 29 December 2006

::JUDGMENT::

Counsel for the appellants: Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate General, assistedby Government Pleader forSchool Education (in all theappeals Counsel for respondent: Shri Rajkumar Rudra Counsel for respondents in other appeals: Sarvasri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, Movva Chandra SekharaRao,Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, D.V. Sitarama Murthy, K.V.N. Bhupal, A.Venkata Ramana, Ch.Samson Babu, Ms.K.N. Vijaya Lakshmi,

N. Subbarao,

G. Tuhin Kumar,

Smt.K. Sesha Rajyam,

M. Prabhakar Rao,

S. Girmoji Rao,

T.V.S. Kumar,

Smt.S.A.V. Ratnam,

K. Chidambaram,

Smt.Y. Padmavathi,

M. Subba Reddy,

P. Roy Reddy,

K. Amarender Raju,

T. Srikanth Reddy,

Patlolla Venkata Reddy,

G. Vivekanand,

K. Ravinder Goud,

D. Linga Rao,

Dr.Y. Padmavathi.

Writ Petition No.21793 of 2005 & batch

Between:The management of Adivasi AidedElementary School Adinarayanapuram,Prakasam District.

… Petitioner

And

The State of Andhra PradeshRep. by its Secretary for SchoolEducation and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Ms. K.N.Vijayalakshmi Counsel for the petitioners in other connected cases: Sarvasri G. Vidyasagar, M.V.S.Suresh Kumar,

S. Niranjan Reddy,

K.V.N. Bhupal,

Aka Venkataramana,

V. Mallik, A. Rama Rao

Counsel for respondents: Shri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate General, assistedby Government Pleader for School Education December 29, 2006

Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ

By this judgment, we are disposing of the above noted appealalong with Writ Appeal Nos. 1579, 1585, 1643, 1672, 1681, 1726,1746, 1759, 1932, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1979, 1987, 1992, 1993,2006, 2022, 2034, 2069, 2155, 2165, 2166, 2167, 2180, 2185, 2186,2187, 2249, 2274, 2285, 2289, 2319, and 2383 of 2005, 104, 148,309 and 739 of 2006, Writ Appeal Nos. 1381, 1382, 1383, 1384,1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395,1396, 1397, 1398, 1399, 1400 of 2006 and Writ Petition Nos.21793,21794, 24718, 24983, 25215, 25481, 25482, 25522, 25524, 25527,25583, 26323, 26328 of 2005 and 3330, 3450, 3451, 3531, 3550,3575, 3587, 3594, 3599, 3643, 3660, 3821, 3822, 3823, 3837, 4240,4241, 7031, 7068, 7069, 7070, 7120 of 2006.

The writ appeals have been preferred by the Government ofAndhra Pradesh and its officers against the orders passed by thelearned Single Judges whereby they declared that the ban imposedby the State Government vide Memo No.1280/ COSE/A2/2004-4dated 20-10-2004 on the filling up of existing vacancies in the cadreof teachers is not applicable to the recruitment process alreadyinitiated by the management of the private schools for filling up thevacant aided posts of teachers and directed the non-petitioners(appellants herein) to allow the writ petitioners (respondents in the writ appeals) to complete the process of selection.

Procedure

In some of the writ petitions filed by the management of theprivate schools, prayer has been made for issue of a direction to therespondents to allow them to complete the process of recruitmentinitiated prior to 20-10-2004 and to strike down the process ofrationalization undertaken by the authorities of the EducationDepartment pursuant to interim order dated 31-10-2005 passed inWrit Appeal No.1578 of 2005. It has been further prayed that therespondents be restrained from transferring the teachers from oneschool to the other by declaring them surplus and they be directed torelease the amount of salary payable to the teachers appointedagainst the aided posts. In some other writ petitions filed by theselected candidates, prayer has been made for issue of directions tothe official respondents to enable the management of the privateschools to appoint them against the existing vacancies in the cadre ofteachers.

For the sake of convenience, we have noted the facts from thepaper book of W.A. (SR) No.121938 of 2005 filed by the Governmentof Andhra Pradesh and others against order dated 9-3-2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ PetitionNo.22804 of 2004 - C.A.M. High School, Nellore v. Government ofAndhra Pradesh and others because, in furtherance of leavegranted by the Division Bench on 7-3-2006, amended writ petitionhas been filed in that case and prayer has been made for quashingMemo dated 20-10-2004 and Rc.No.140/B2-1/2005 dated 3-11-2005issued by the Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Director’).

Respondent – C.A.M. High School, Nellore is a private aidedschool established by Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches. Allthe posts of teachers sanctioned for the school are aided posts. In 2004, the management of the school approached District EducationalOfficer, Nellore for grant of permission to fill up the existing vacantposts. Deputy Educational Officer, Nellore vide his proceedings inRc.No.178/2004 dated 16-8-2004 submitted report to DistrictEducational Officer, Nellore giving details of the total strength ofstudents and vacancy position in the cadre of teachers. DistrictEducational Officer, Nellore sent letter dated 17-9-2004 to RegionalJoint Director of School Education, Guntur (for short, ‘the RegionalJoint Director’) recommending grant of sanction to the managementof the school to fill up the vacant aided posts. The latter issuedproceedings dated 22-9-2004 whereby he granted permission forfilling up eight vacant posts of teachers. For the sake of reference, that letter is reproduced below:

PROCEEDINGS OF THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OFSCHOOL EDUCATION :: GUNTURPRESENT: SRI C.A.V. PRASAD, M.A. M.Ed.

Rc.No.4286/A5/2004-1

Date: 22-09-2004

Sub: Education – Secondary Education – Aided – C.A.M. High School, Nellore – Permission to fill up the vacant aided posts –Accorded.

Read: 1) DEO, Nellore Lr.R.No.2366/B6/2004, Dt.17.09.2004,

2) G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (PS-II) Dept., dt.1.1.1994.

3) G.O.Ms.No.41, WD & CW (Estt.) Dept. dt.1.8.1996.

4) G.O.Ms.No.100, Edn. (PS-I) Dept., Dt.16-8-2001

5) G.O.Ms.No.75, SE (PS-II) Dept., dt.23-9-2002

communicated in C & DSE’s Procs., Rc.No.1000/B1-3/

02, dt.24-9-2002.

6) G.O.Ms.No.91, SE (PS-II) Dept., dt.12.11.2002

7) G.O.Ms.No.8, SE (PS-II) Dept. dt.30-1-2003

communicated in C & DSE’s Proc.Rc.No.1000/B1-3/02, dt.7-2-2003.

8) Procs.Rc.No.1000/B1-3/02, dt.30.5.2003 of the C & DSE, AP, Hyd.

***

In the circumstances explained by the Dist. Educational Officer, Nellore andrecommendation vide reference first read above, permission is hereby accorded tofill up the following vacant aided posts at C.A.M. High School, Nellore with theprovisions of G.O.Ms.No.41 WD & CW Dept., dt.1-8-1996 and in due observancewith the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education dt.1-1-1994, and also strictlyfollowing the procedure given in Rule-12 including sub-rule (6) of Rule-13 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dt.1-1-1994 read with guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.75,Edn., dt.23-9-2002 and Procs. Rc.No.1000/B1-3/02 dt.24-9-2002 of the C & DSE,A P , Hyderabad, and subject to pending outcome of judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in the SLP filed against the orders in W.A.No.1519/1999.

Any deviation in this regard will be viewed seriously. It is also informed that the selection of approval will be made under sub-rule(8) & (9) of Rule-12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Edn., dt.1-1-1994 and also as per the ordersissued in G.O.Ms.No.100, Edn., (PS-I) Dept., Dt.16-8-2001. Receipt of these proceedings should be acknowledged by return of post.

Sd/- C.A.V. Prasad,REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OFSCHOOL EDUCATION, GUNTUR.

ToThe Dist.Educational Officer, NelloreCopy to the Dy. Educational Officer, Nellore.Copy to the Correspondent, CAM High School, Nellore.

In furtherance of the permission granted by the RegionalDirector, the management of the school requested DistrictEmployment Officer, Nellore to forward the names of eligiblepersons. Simultaneously, letter dated 27-9-2004 was sent to DistrictEducational Officer, Nellore to depute departmental nominee. Afterseeking some clarification from the management of the school,District Educational Officer, Nellore nominated Shri M. Ramalingam, Deputy Educational Officer to participate in theprocess of selection. As a sequel to this, the management of theschool issued an advertisement, which was published in two dailynewspapers i.e. Eenadu and Andhra Jyothi for filling up eight vacantposts (3 - B.Ed. Assistants – Maths, 1 – B.Ed. Physics and 4 – SGBTteachers). During the currency of recruitment process, the management of the school was informed that the government hasissued Memo dated 20-10-2004 imposing ban on the filling up of thevacant posts and, therefore, the selection process cannot becompleted. Thereupon, the management filed Writ Petition No.22804of 2004 for grant of a declaration that the decision contained in Memo dated 20-10-2004 is not retrospective and the same cannot be applied tothe ongoing process of recruitment meant for filling up the vacantaided posts for which permission has already been granted by thecompetent authority.

In the counter filed by Shri A. Krishna Rao, District EducationalOfficer, Nellore on behalf of the non-petitioners (appellants herein), itwas not disputed that in furtherance of sanction granted by thecompetent authority i.e. the Regional Joint Director, Guntur, themanagement of the school initiated the process of recruitment of eightteachers and that Shri M. Ramalingam, Deputy Educational Officerwas nominated was departmental representative on the StaffSelection Committee. Not only this, the deponent averred that theCorrespondent of the School fixed the date of interview inconsultation with Shri M. Ramalingam. According to Shri A. KrishnaRao, the process of selection could not be completed because ShriM. Ramalingam was promoted and posted as District EducationalOfficer, Chittoor. Thereafter, the management of the school suo motufixed 14-12-2004 as the date of interview, but the same had to bestayed in view of the ban imposed by the State Government videMemo dated 20-10-2004.

The learned Single Judge noted that by an order dated 9-12-2004 passed in Writ Petition No.22188 of 2004, a CoordinateBench had declared that the ban imposed by the State Governmentwas not applicable to the cases in which permission had been accorded by the competent authority to fill up the vacant posts andheld that the management of the school is entitled to fill up the vacantposts.

The appellants have challenged the direction given by thelearned Single Judge by asserting that in view of the general banimposed by the State Government, the management of the schoolcannot make recruitment on the basis of permission granted by theJoint Regional Director vide order dated 22-9-2004 and freshpermission is required to be obtained for filling up the vacant aidedposts.

The factual matrix of the other appeals is by and large similar. The writ petitions filed by the management of different schools wereallowed by the learned Single Judges and directions were issued tothe appellants to allow the petitioners to complete the process ofselection and appoint the selected candidates. In the writ appeals,the appellants have challenged the orders of the learned SingleJudge on grounds similar to those contained in Writ Appeal (SR)No.121938 of 2005.

Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to notice some ofthe interim orders passed in Writ Appeal No.1578 of 2005 (WritPetition No.15839 of 2005) – The Govt. of A.P. and two others v.

Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School, Hyderabad becauseimplementation of one such order dated 31-10-2005 has resulted ininstitution of a large number of writ petitions by the managements ofthe private schools. The details of the interim orders are as under:

1) On 8-9-2005, some of the appeals were admitted and ordered to be fixed on 31-10-2005.

2) On 31-10-2005, the cases were adjourned for three weeks and the following order was passed:

“In the meantime, the Government is directed to complete its process of rationalization and fill up all theposts, which are necessary to be filled up. If the postsare not filled up in the petitioner institutions where theneed is already established, the establishments shallbe at liberty to make appointments on their own afterexpiry of three weeks. There are some institutionswhere we are told that selections were made prior to 3-6-2003, which were permitted by the Director ofEducation as well. Those appointees shall continue toremain in service.”

Conclusion

3) On 30-11-2005, the Court took cognizance of the statementmade by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that theGovernment Pleader has supplied a paper book containingseveral orders and reports, which did not form part of therecord of the writ petition and gave liberty to them to filesupplementary affidavit and additional documents.

4) On 6-1-2006, the case was adjourned to 27-1-2006 with the direction that a comprehensive statement containing thedetails of the vacant posts available in different privaterecognized aided schools, the date on which requisition wassent to the competent authority, the date on which approval, ifany, was granted by the competent authority, the date onwhich the meeting of the selection committee was held and thedate on which recommendations were made be supplied tothe Court.

5) On 3-3-2006, the learned Advocate General produced theoriginal file containing the Minutes of the meeting held on 8-10-2004 and D.O. Letter dated 18-10-2004 pursuant to whichparagraph 17 of the original Minutes was substituted. Aftergoing through the same, the Court directed the learnedAdvocate General to seek instructions from the concerned persons and make a statement whether or not the amendedparagraph 17 of the Minutes was recorded with the approval ofthe Chief Minister.

6) On the next date of hearing i.e. 7-3-2006, the learnedAdvocate General stated that the amendment was made inparagraph 17 of the Minutes recorded on 8-10-2004 with theapproval of the Chief Minister and the Education Minister. Healso supplied a bunch of papers to Shri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar,counsel representing some of the contesting parties. Thereupon, learned counsel for the respondents sought leaveof the Court to amend the writ petition, which was granted. Since that order has bearing on the decision of some of thewrit petitions, the same is reproduced below:

“In furtherance of order dated 03-03-2006, learnedAdvocate General, on the basis of the instructions givento him, made a statement that the amendment wasmade in paragraph 17 of the Minutes recorded on 08-10-2004 at the approval of the Chief Minister and theEducation Minister. The learned Advocate General hasalso supplied a bunch of papers to Shri M.V.S. SureshKumar, learned counsel representing some of thecontesting parties.

Shri Suresh Kumar and other learned counselappearing for the contesting parties say that they maybe given liberty to challenge the legality of MemoNo.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4 dated 20-10-2004 andincorporate other amendments in one of the writpetitions out of which the present appeals arise.

The learned counsel appearing in other casesstate that they may be given liberty to makesubmissions on the basis of amendments carried out inone of the writ petitions and that they would not insist onseeking leave to amend other petitions.

Although the learned Advocate General suggeststhat all the cases may be remanded to the learned

Single Judge for fresh adjudication, keeping in view thefact that the matters have remained pending before theCourt for more than one year and some of the selectedpersons have not been able to get the benefit ofselection, we deem it proper to entertain the request ofthe learned counsel for the writ petitioners for grant ofleave to amend the writ petition with the correspondingliberty to the respondents to file counter to the amendedpetition.

Shri Suresh Kumar says that necessaryamendments will be carried out in the writ petitionwithin a period of two weeks from today.

In view of the statement made by the learnedcounsel, further hearing of the appeals and the writpetitions is adjourned to 12-04-2006 with liberty to thecounsel for the writ petitioners in one of the cases tocomprehensively amend the pleadings and also tochallenge the legality of memo dated 20-10-2004, if soadvised.

The amended petition be filed within two weeks,after supplying advance copy to the office of theAdvocate General.

The non-petitioners in the writ petition, may fileamended counter within next two weeks.

At this stage, some of the learned counsel for thewrit petitioners submit that the Court may stay the endproduct of exercise undertaken by the Department fordeclaring the teachers surplus in terms of Rule 10 (12)of the 1993 Rules. According to them, if the posts arefilled up by appointing surplus teachers, the selectedcandidates will suffer irreparable injury.

The learned Advocate General submits thatexercise for determination of the surplus hands wasundertaken in compliance of the direction given by theCourt in the month of October, 2005 and orders forposting of the surplus teachers were also passedsometime in November 2005, but the Management ofthe private aided schools did not implement the orderspassed by the competent authority. He submits that the rights of the selected candidates, as and whendetermined by the Court, will be appropriatelyrespected by the Government and therefore, the Courtmay not stay the implementation of the orders issued asa result of the exercise undertaken by the Department.

We have thoughtfully considered the respectivesubmissions and are of the view that, at this stage, it willnot be in the interest of either of the parties to stall theprocess initiated by the Department for determination ofthe surplus hands. Therefore, we direct that there shallbe no stay on the exercise undertaken by theDepartment. There shall also be no stay in transfer ofteachers against the vacant posts but the exercise ofrationalization and transferring the surplus hands shallremain subject to the final adjudication of appeals andwrit petitions and the rights of the selected teachersshall not, in any manner, be adversely affected onaccount of implementation of the policy ofrationalization. This would necessarily mean that if thewrit petitioners succeed, then the transferred teacherswill have to be displaced from their posts in order tomake room for the selected hands.

The above direction would remain subject to thecondition that the transferred teachers shall not becompelled to join their respective posting till

23-04-2006 because, the examinations in variousschools are still going on and transfer of teachers mayadversely affect the careers of the students. This wouldnecessarily mean that after 23-04-2006, the transferredteachers shall have to join at their respective places,failing which the competent authority shall be free totake appropriate action in accordance with law.”

In furtherance of the leave granted by the Court, amendedpetition was filed in Writ Petition No.22804 of 2004 – C.A.M. HighSchool, Nellore v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others tochallenge the legality and vires of Memo dated 20-10-2004.

In the affidavit filed by Shri Y.T. Mitra, it is averred that Memo dated 20-10-2004 is violative of Rule 12 of the Andhra PradeshEducational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administrationand Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (forshort, ‘the 1993 Rules’) and G.O.Ms.No.75, School Education (PS-2)Department, dated 23-9-2002. Another plea taken by the petitioner is that Memo dated20-10-2004 does not truly reflect the decision taken in the meetingheld on 8-10-2004 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Ministerinasmuch as, even though no decision was taken to ban recruitmentagainst the existing vacancies in the cadre of aided posts, theMinutes of the meeting recorded by the concerned authority wereamended on 19-10-2004 at the instance of Principal Secretary (W &P) without the permission/approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister orthe Hon’ble Education Minister. The petitioner has also assailed theexercise undertaken by the department for rationalization bycontending that the same is contrary to the provisions contained inthe 1993 Rules.

We may now advert to the steps taken by the authorities of theEducation Department in furtherance of interim order dated 31-10-2005 and also notice factual matrix of some of the writ petitions filedfor questioning the rationalization exercise undertaken by thedepartment. On receipt of the copy of order dated 31-10-2005, theDirector addressed letter dated 3-11-2005 to the Regional JointDirectors and District Educational Officers requiring them to take upthe rationalization work in private aided schools as per the normsprescribed by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005. The District Educational Officers were directed to constituteteams consisting of three members comprising Head Masters/Lecturers of training colleges. Each team was required to visit 20aided schools within one week and submit report to the District Educational Officer in the prescribed formats – I, II and III. The latterwas required to complete the work of rationalization by 14-11-2005. In compliance of these directions, the District Educational Officersconstituted teams for inspection of various private aided schools anddeclared some teachers surplus. They also issued consequentialorders on 17[th], 19[th] and 20[th] November, 2005 for shifting the surplusteachers. (Xerox copies of these orders have been included inseparate paper book filed by the learned Advocate General).

–Writ Petition No.25215 of 2005 Private Recognised AidedSchools Managements Association, Vijayawada and 16 others v.Government of Andhra Pradesh and another In this petition, the petitioners have challenged G.O.Ms.No.103,dated 5-8-2005 and instructions issued by the Director of SchoolEducation vide letter dated 3-11-2005. They have claimed that thestaff of private schools can be declared surplus in terms of Rule 10(17) of the 1993 Rules only if there is a fall in strength for twosuccessive academic years whereas G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005provide for amalgamation of schools, identification of surplus staffand posts and shifting and transfer of staff without any tangibleground. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the affidavit filed by him, Shri M.Anjaiah, Secretary of petitioner No.1 association, has averred asunder:

“12. On the basis of the instructions given by the respondents,the DEOs have conducted a perfunctory and hasty enquiryand have sought to submit reports in respect of all schools inthe State within a period of three days. No proper care wastaken for ascertaining the total strength of students of differentschools at different levels for two consecutive years and alsothe details regarding the staff of the respective schools work inun-aided, yet recognized posts were not calculated. In fact, onaccount of this arbitrary procedure that has been followed, the respondents are also not verifying and scrutinizing the recordsconsistently submitted by each of the schools admitted togrant-in-aid scheme whereunder the strength of the studentsand the staff position are submitted on a monthly basis for thepurpose of seeking the release of grant-in-aid funds.

13. In addition to this periodic inspections are alsoconducted on behalf of the DEOs in respect of various schoolswhich reports also disclose the students strength and positionin respect of the various levels of each school. These reportshave also not being considered at all. There are also auditreports submitted in respect of all the high schools which alsocontain all the details concerning the staff and the students ofthe concerned school. Without referring to any of theserecords and also the registers maintained with respectiveschools, the team only resorted to an arbitrary head count ofthe students attending on a particular date and on the basis ofsuch inspection submitted their reports for transferring outposts and staff.”

In the counter-affidavit filed by him, Dr.P. Krishnaiah, Secretaryto Government, School Education Department has claimed thatG.O.Ms.No.103 dated 5-8-2005 was issued because, while theprescribed teacher-pupil ratio is 1 : 40, there are more number ofteachers than required. According to Shri Krishnaiah, the actualteacher - pupil ratio in the government school is 1 : 32 whereas in theprivate institutions, including unaided institutions, the teacher – pupilratio is as follows:

Shri Krishnaiah has given the details of the budget allocation made inthe last five years for payment of salaries to the staff of the aidedschools and claimed that even though the government is spendinghuge amount, the managements of private schools have been making appointments in clear violation of the 1993 Rules without anyrequirement and, therefore, it became necessary to ban recruitmentagainst the vacant aided posts. In paragraphs 22 and 23 of hisaffidavit, Shri P. Krishnaiah has averred as under:

“2 2 . I submit that the allegation that the exercise ofrationalization was done in a perfunctory manner is also notcorrect. The actual availability of students was taken intoaccount and a sufficient buffer was also given to take care ofstudents who might have been absent as on the date of thevisit of the inspection teams. In Director’s Proc.No.140/B2-1/2005, dated 3-11-2005, instructions issued that to take upthe rationalization work as per the norms prescribed inG.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005 and also as per the guidelinesissued below:

1. The District Educational Officer should constitutenumber of teams consisting three members of eachteam with HM.Lecturers of training colleges.number of teams consisting three members of eachteam with HM.Lecturers of training colleges.

Ratio decidendi

2. Each team should visit 20 aided schools within aweek and submit the report to the DEO in theprescribed format-I, II and III.week and submit the report to the DEO in theprescribed format-I, II and III.

3. Each member of the tam and Assistant Directorshould sign in the proforma with the name anddesignation with seal.should sign in the proforma with the name anddesignation with seal.

4. the DEO should take up rationalization work on warfoot basis and it should be completed by 14.11.2005positively.foot basis and it should be completed by 14.11.2005positively.

23. I submit that in an exercise of this nature, which wasdone under the directions of the Hon’ble Court withinthree weeks engaging 1813 special teams consisting 3members with H.M./Lecturers of Training Colleges inthe entire State, it may not be possible to achievehundred per cent accuracy. The aberrations, if any, inthe rationalization exercise can be rectified, if they arebrought to the notice of the Director of SchoolEducation, by way of an Appeal under Section 89 of theA.P. Education Act. As a matter of fact, severalmanagements have already filed such Appeals, and thedone under the directions of the Hon’ble Court withinthree weeks engaging 1813 special teams consisting 3members with H.M./Lecturers of Training Colleges inthe entire State, it may not be possible to achievehundred per cent accuracy. The aberrations, if any, inthe rationalization exercise can be rectified, if they arebrought to the notice of the Director of SchoolEducation, by way of an Appeal under Section 89 of theA.P. Education Act. As a matter of fact, severalmanagements have already filed such Appeals, and the same are being processed in accordance with law bythe Director of School Education.”

Along with his affidavit, Shri Krishnaiah has annexed a chart toshow the number of the aided posts as also the surplus posts.

Writ Petition No.24983 of 2005 –K. Pitchi Reddy and 4 others v.The Secretary to Government, School Education Department, and 3others.

In this petition, the petitioners have challenged letter dated 3-11-2005 issued by the Director constituting the committees forrationalization work in private aided schools by contending that thesame is ultra vires the provisions contained in G.O.Ms. No.103, dated5-8-3005 and Rule 10 (17) of the 1993 Rules. The plea of thepetitioners is that respondent No.3 cannot issue instructions inviolation of the policy framed by the State Government forrationalization of staff. They have relied on order dated 10-11-205passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.24024 of2005 – Kadapa District Private Recognised Aided SchoolsManagements Association, Kadapa v. Director of School Education,Andhra Pradesh and two others, and pleaded that in view of thatorder, the exercise undertaken by respondent No.2 for rationalizationof staffing pattern is liable to be declared nullity.

–Writ Petition No.4241 of 2006 J. Madhava Reddy v. TheGovernment of Andhra Pradesh and 5 others.

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing theproceedings dated 23-10-2005 issued by the District EducationalOfficer and Secretary, District Rationalisation Committee, WestGodavari District and Memo dated 10-2-2006 whereby the StateGovernment cancelled the instructions issued vide Memo dated 5-8-2004 and 10-2-2005. He has further prayed for issue of direction to the respondents to approve his appointment as teacher with effectfrom 10-6-2003. Paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed by the petitionerreads as under:

“5. It is also further submitted that the 1[st] respondent hereinissued Memo No.9430/SE-PS-II/2005-08 dt.10-2-2006cancelling the government Memo No.3989/PS-II/2004-05sdt.5-8-2004 and 10-2-2005 on the ground that rationalizationhas been completed and it was found that 350 posts aresurplus due to steep decrease in the student strength. It ishumbly submitted that the entire procedure adopted forrationalization as per G.O.Ms.No.103, dt.5-8-2005 is arbitrary and unjust. It is submitted that insteadof taking into the student strength of the previous years, theauthorities made head count on the day they visited the schooland without notice to the correspondent arrived the studentstrength without referring to the school registers. It issubmitted that the head count of the student on a particular dayis not contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.103, dt.5-8-2005 andG.O.Ms.No.1, dated 1-1-1994 which prescribe that the strength of the previousyears has to be taken into consideration. It is also submittedthat as memo dt.10-2-2006 has cancelled the previous memosdt.5-8-2004 and 10-2-2005 of the government, I am advisedthat the said memo is illegal and arbitrary for the reasonswhich have been submitted.”

–Writ Petition No.7031 of 2006 Jelli Rajini Rani v. The Governmentof A.P., Education Department and 4 others.

The petitioner – Rajani Rani has prayed for quashing Memodated 10-2-2006 issued by the government and the rationalizationprocess adopted by District Educational Officer and Secretary,District Rationalisation Committee, Prakasam by contending that thesame is violative of the policy contained in G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005. She has also prayed for issue of a direction to respondentNos.2 and 3 to approve her appointment with effect from 12-6-2003.

In paragraph 5 of her affidavit, the petitioner has averred that insteadof taking into consideration the student strength of the previous years,the authorities made head count on the day of their visit and that toowithout giving notice to the Correspondent of the school.

–Writ Petition No.7120 of 2006 Y. Venkata Reddy v. TheGovernment of A.P. rep. by Secretary, School Education Departmentand two others.

In this petition, petitioner – Y. Venkata Reddy has prayed forgrant of a declaration that Memo dated 20-10-2004 is not applicableto Gurukula Vidyalaya High School, Mahanandi, Kurnool District. Hehas further prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents todecide his representation dated 25-11-2004 and admit seventeaching and two non-teaching posts into grant-in-aid.

–Writ Petition No.21794 of 2005 The Management of RCMHighSchool v. The State of A.P. rep. by its Secretary, EducationDepartment and two others.

In this petition, the management of R.C.M. Primary School hasprayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to release salary forthe post held by Smt.N.G. Jayanthi Kumar who was appointed on therecommendations of the Staff Selection Committee.

-Writ Petition No.25481 of 2005AndhraEvangelicalLutheranChurch, Guntur v. Government of A.P., School Education Departmentand six others.

In this petition, Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Gunturhas prayed for quashing G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 5-8-2005 and letterdated 3-11-2005 issued by the Director, and the consequential actiontaken for transfer of teachers to the institution as a result ofrationalization.

-Writ Petition No.25522 of 2005 Smt. St. Mary Fathima High

School, Kurnool v. Government of A.P. rep. by its Principal Secretary,School Education Deprtment and five others.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashingproceedings dated 19-11-2005 issued by District Educational Officer,Kurnool for posting of respondent No.6 on the post of Telugu PunditGrade-II. The petitioner has also prayed for striking downG.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005 on the ground that the same is ultravires the provisions of the 1982 Act. The petitioner has relied on thejudgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.604 and 950 of1999 and averred that the respondents cannot withhold approval ofthe appointments made after following the relevant statutoryprovisions.

Writ Petition No.3330 of 2006 –Church of SouthIndiaHigh School,Karimnagar v. Government of Andhra Pradesh.

In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing threeorders dated 14-2-2006 issued by District Educational Officer,Karimnagar transferring three teachers from other schools withoutregard to the subject required. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit filed byhim, Shri S. John Theodore, Bishop and Chairman of DioceseEducation Committee, Church of India, Diocese of Karimnagar, hasaverred as under:

“5. It I submitted that while so, a batch of writ petitions werefiled before this Hon’ble Court, seeking filling up of the existingvacancies and the said writ petitions were allowed andsubsequently the respondent authorities have preferred WritAppeal No.1578/2005 and batch and this Hon’ble Court on 31-10-2005 passed an order directing the authorities to completethe rationalization and to fill up the vacancies out of thesurplus. I submit that in pursuance of the said orders, the1strespondent issued G.O.Ms.No.62, dt.31-1-2006 accordingpermission to fill 123 aided posts which were alreadypermitted by the competent authorities to the management offiled before this Hon’ble Court, seeking filling up of the existingvacancies and the said writ petitions were allowed andsubsequently the respondent authorities have preferred WritAppeal No.1578/2005 and batch and this Hon’ble Court on 31-10-2005 passed an order directing the authorities to completethe rationalization and to fill up the vacancies out of thesurplus. I submit that in pursuance of the said orders, the1strespondent issued G.O.Ms.No.62, dt.31-1-2006 accordingpermission to fill 123 aided posts which were alreadypermitted by the competent authorities to the management of

various schools. It is submitted that from out of the postsmentioned in the G.O., the posts of School Assistant (Maths),Hindi Pandit Grade-II and Record Assistant one post each wassanctioned to the petitioner’s institution. It is relevant to submithere that subsequently the 3[rd] respondent by his proceedingsdirected the petitioner management to admit the respondentNos.5 to 7 herein and transferred the 4[th] respondent from ourschool to another school. In fact, the services of the 4[th]respondent is very much required to our school, apart from theabove, the respondent No.5 who is a School Assistant (Maths)relates to English Medium, but our institution requires theSchool Assistant (Maths) Telugu Medium, and whereas thepost of Secondary Grade Teacher is not yet sanctioned interms of G.O.Ms.No.62. In view of the above directing thepetitioner to admit the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and furtherrelieving the 4[th] respondent from our institution is whollyillegal, arbitrary and improper. Hence, it is just and necessaryto direct the respondents not to effect the transfers of thepetitioner Nos.4 to 7, otherwise the petitioner’s school wouldbe put to severe hardships, as the 3[rd] respondent has directedthe petitioner’s institution to admit the unconcerned staff, whichwould ultimately cause adverse effect to the students.”

–Writ Petition No.3531 of 2006 D.V. Ramanamurthy and four othersv. The Government of A.P. represented by Principal Secretary,Education Department, Hyderabad and two others.

In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashingproceedings dated 31-1-2006 and 1-2-2006 issued by the Directorand District Educational Officer, Srikakulam for their transfer by beingtreated surplus.

The above noted writ petitions are representative of issuesraised in the other writ petitions. In none of these petitions, therespondents have filed counter-affidavit. Therefore, we shall decidethe writ petitions by treating the averments contained in the affidavitsfiled by or on behalf of the petitioners as correct.

Arguments:

Shri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Advocate Generalemphasized that the State Government imposed ban on the creationof new posts and appointment on the existing vacancies becauselarge number of teachers in the private aided schools are surplus andthe State Government is burdened with huge liability in the form oftheir salary etc. without any tangible benefit to the studentcommunity. He submitted that the management of private the schoolshad initiated process of recruitment without complying with themandatory conditions incorporated in Rule 12 of the 1993 Rules and,therefore, it became necessary to ban further recruitment. He thensubmitted that the State Government is the only authority competentto sanction recruitment against the vacant posts, but, without evensubmitting applications to the competent authority, the managementof private schools started the process of selection, which had to bestopped. Learned Advocate General also pointed out that in largenumber of cases, recruitment was made without constituting StaffSelection Committee envisaged under Rule 13 of the 1993 Rulesand / or without associating the nominee of the District EducationalOfficer, but all this was ignored by the learned Single Judges whiledeclaring that the decision contained in Memo dated 20-10-2004 isnot applicable to the ongoing process of recruitment. Shri C.V.Mohan Reddy also defended the exercise of rationalizationundertaken by the District Educational Officers in furtherance ofinterim order dated 31-10-2005 and argued that the respondentscannot take any exception to the absorption of surplus teachers as acondition precedent to the grant of permission for recruitment againstthe existing vacancies. He then submitted that if any deficiency ispointed out in the process of rationalization, then remedial action will be taken by the authorities of the Education Department.

Conclusion

be taken by the authorities of the Education Department.

Shri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar and other learned counselappearing for the respondents in the writ appeals and petitioners inthe writ petitioners argued that the decision contained in Memo dated20-10-2004 is not retrospective and, therefore, the learned SingleJudges did not commit any error by declaring that the same is notapplicable to the process of recruitment initiated by the managementof the private schools pursuant to the permission granted by thecompetent authorities for filling up the vacant aided posts. Learnedcounsel submitted that the procedure adopted by the management ofthe private schools for recruiting teachers etc. is in consonance withthe 1993 Rules and the appellants cannot take any exception to thesame or invoke the ban contained in Memo dated 20-10-2004 forstultifying the process of selection. Shri Suresh Kumar further arguedthat even if Memo dated 20-10-2004 is treated applicable to theongoing process of recruitment, the directions given by the learnedSingle Judges cannot be faulted because the management of theschools had taken permission from the competent authoritiesspecified in Rule 3 of the 1993 Rules. He submitted that thedefinition of the term ‘competent authority’ contained in Section 2 (12)of the 1982 Act and Rule 2 (e) of the 1993 Rules is not relevant fordeciding the legality of the process initiated by the management ofthe private schools for making appointment against the existingvacant aided posts because, in each case, permission had beenobtained from the District Educational Officer or the Regional JointDirector, who are competent to grant permission for filling up thevacant aided posts. Learned counsel further argued that if thedecision contained in Memo dated 20-10-2004 is interpreted asputting a restraint on the right of the management to make recruitmentin accordance with rules, then the same is liable to be declared ultra vires the statutory rules. Shri A.Venkata Ramana, learned counselfor some of the petitioners emphasized that selection for appointmentof teachers against the aided posts had been made after seekingpermission from the competent authority and, therefore, Memo dated20-10-2004 could not have been made basis for stultifying theappointment. Shri N. Subba Rao argued that the ban imposed by thegovernment is violative of Article 21A of the Constitution because thesame would result in depriving the students of primary and upperprimary schools of their fundamental right to receive education. ShriSuresh Kumar and other learned counsel then referred toG.O.Ms.No.75, dated 23-9-2002 and argued that the permissiongiven by the ‘competent authorities’ defined in Rule 3 (e) of the 1993Rules cannot be nullified by imposing ban on the recruitment ofexisting vacancies. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners inthe writ petitions assailed the rationalization process undertaken bythe authorities of the Education Department in furtherance ofinstructions issued by the Director vide letter dated 3-11-2005 byarguing that the same is per se violative of the provisions of theAndhra Pradesh Grant-in-Aid Regulation Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the1988 Act’) read with the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 andthe 1993 Rules. Shri S. Niranjan Reddy referred to the pleadings ofWrit Petition No.25215 of 2005 and some other cases and arguedthat the entire exercise undertaken by the departmental authoritiesshould be declared as farce because the teams constituted by theDirector did not give notice to the Correspondent or management ofthe schools and made recommendations only on the basis ofattendance of the students on the date of inspection. Learnedcounsel then argued that clauses (3), (4) and (5) of G.O.Ms.No.103,dated 5-8-2005 are liable to be struck down because the same arecontrary to Rule 10 (12), (17) and (18) of the 1993 Rules. Shri

Analysis

Niranjan Reddy also pointed out that in some of the cases, thecommittees constituted by the Director had visited the schools when itwas heavily raining and most of the students had not come to attendthe classes. He submitted that the recommendations made on thebasis of such inspection could not be relied for the purpose ofdeclaring the teachers surplus in one school and transferring /absorbing them in other school and that too without regard to thesubject requirement of the transferee school.

We have considered the respective arguments. Two questions,which require determination by the Court are:

1) Whether the decision taken in the meeting held on 8-10-2004 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Ministerhas the effect of imposing total ban on the recruitment ofteachers against the aided posts except with thepermission of the State Government and whether Memodated 20-10-2004 is ultra vires the 1993 Rules?8-10-2004 under the Chairmanship of the Chief Ministerhas the effect of imposing total ban on the recruitment ofteachers against the aided posts except with thepermission of the State Government and whether Memodated 20-10-2004 is ultra vires the 1993 Rules?

2) Whether the exercise of rationalization undertaken by theauthorities of the Education Department in furtherance ofinterim order dated 31-10-2005 passed by this Court islegally tenable and whether instructions contained inG.O.Ms.No.103 dated 5-8-2005 is violative of Rule 10 (17)of the 1993 Rules and is liable to be quashed on thatground?authorities of the Education Department in furtherance ofinterim order dated 31-10-2005 passed by this Court islegally tenable and whether instructions contained inG.O.Ms.No.103 dated 5-8-2005 is violative of Rule 10 (17)of the 1993 Rules and is liable to be quashed on thatground?

Before dealing with the above noted questions, we deem itproper to take cognizance of the previous litigation which has bearingon the decision of the writ appeals.

The record produced by the learned counsel for the partiesshows that after almost three years of the framing of the 1993 Rules,the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.275, Finance & Planning (FW.SMPC) Department, dated 14-12-1995 imposing a restriction onfilling up of the posts of all categories except with the prior permissionof the Government in the Finance and Planning (Finance Wing)Department. After two years and eight months, the State Governmentissued Memo No.5-S/1491/ 451/SMPC/98 dated 3-8-1998 wherebythe provisions contained in G.O.Ms.No.275, dated 14-12-1995 weremade applicable to the grant-in-aid schools.

Kavitha More and five others who were selected forappointment as teachers in L.M.S. High School, Begum Bazar,Hyderabad (a private aided school), but were denied appointment inview of the instructions contained in G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14-12-1995 and Memo dated 5-8-1998 filed Writ Petition No.6380 of1999 for grant of a declaration that the restriction imposed by theState Government is ultra vires the 1993 Rules. By an order dated28-4-1999, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition anddirected the respondents to approve the selection of the petitioners.

The management of the private aided schools also filed WritPetition Nos.28770, 32362, 32384, 33195 and 35308 of 1998questioning G.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14-12-1995 and Memo dated 5-8-1998 on the ground that the same are ultra vires the 1993 Rules. They pleaded that the selections made against the aided posts couldnot be frustrated by applying the restriction contained inG.O.Ms.No.275 dated 14-12-1995. The learned Single Judgereferred to order dated 28-4-1999 passed in Writ Petition No.6380 of1999 and directed the concerned respondents to approve theselections made by selection committees of the respective privateaided educational institutions for filling up the vacant posts. However, liberty was given to the Government to amend or modify orissue another order to make the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.275 dated14-12-1995 applicable to the private aided educational institutions.

Writ Appeal No.1426 of 1999 – The Government of A.P. v. D.M.R.Elementary School, Padi Sonpet, Tenali, Guntur District and batchfiled against the order of the learned Single Judge were dismissed bythe Division Bench on 1-10-1999. The relevant extracts of the judgment of the DivisionBench are reproduced below:

“The respondents are the aided schools. We fail tocomprehend as to how the G.O.Ms.No.275 can be madeapplicable to the schools by simple administrative instructionwhich undisputedly is running contrary to the statutory rulesframed and issued vide G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 1.1.1994. Therespondents are the aided schools and the posts in questiondo not require allocation of budget as already budget has beensanctioned for the said posts. And those posts are createdonly on the eve of retirement/death of the person or it iscreated due to tendering of resignation by the person holdingthat post. That is why, in any eventuality, that is to say, eitherwhen the post falls vacant or when it is filled up, the questionof excess manpower does not arise.

In view of the observations made above and the admittedfact to the effect that G.O.Ms.No.275 runs contrary toG.O.Ms.No.1, we find no force in the contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellants that all the institution/schools whichare getting grant-in-aid from the Government are required toprocess the applications for filling up of the posts through theFinance Department and they have to fill up the vacanciesonly after getting the prior permission from the FinanceDepartment. The posts falling vacant are entirely covered bythe provisions of G.O.Ms.No.1. The learned single Judge haskept it open for the appellants to suitably amend and modifythe statutory rules in accordance with law and not to makethem applicable by executive instructions. In view of theabove observation, we find no error in the finding of thelearned single Judge. Affirming the same, the appeals aredismissed. No costs.”

By taking cognizance of the above mentioned orders of the Single Benches and judgment of the Division Bench, the StateGovernment added sub-rule (2A) to Rule 12 of the 1993 Rules andintroduced the requirement of obtaining clearance from the DistrictLevel Surplus Manpower Cell. That rule envisaged that if there aresuitable candidates in the surplus manpower cell of the district, thenthey should be absorbed against the vacancies as per the saidrequirement and if no suitable candidates are available, then actionto fill the vacancies could be taken by the recruiting agencies andcompetent authorities as per the 1993 Rules without further clearancefrom the Government and Finance Department. Simultaneously, sub-rule (9) of Rule 12 was amended rendering appointments made inviolation of Rule 12 as null and void. The aforesaid amendmentswere circulated vide G.O.Ms.No.76, Education (SE/PS-I) Department,dated 2-11-1999. That G.O. was challenged in Writ Petition No.11750 of2000 and batch – Modern H i g h School, Zamisthanpur,Musheerabad, Hyd. v. Government of A.P.[[1]].A Division Bench ofthis Court struck down the amendment as a whole by observing thatthe same is violative of Article 30 (1) of the Constitution. Paragraph 10 of that judgment reads as under:

“10. Now, what is done by amendment of rule 12 is that thepower of appointment itself is taken away by the StateGovernment from the managements of the minority institutionsand even the Government has restricted its powers ofappointment only to the extent of surplus staff. The net resultwould be that, neither the State Government nor theinstitutions would have the choice to take up the best amongstthe available qualified candidates. Ex facie the amendment isultra vires to Article 30 (1) of the Constitution of India andtherefore is struck down.”

Faced with the repeated reversals in the Court, the State Government issued fresh policy instructions to fill up the vacant aidedteaching posts. The same were circulated by G.O.Ms.No.75, SchoolEducation (PS-2) Department, dated

23-9-2002. For the sake of convenient reference, paragraphs 5, 6and 7 of that G.O. read as under:

“5. In view of the above reasons, Government after carefulexamination, have taken a policy decision on the issuesrelating to (i) filling up of vacant aided posts and (ii) admissionof Grant-in-aid for the new posts as per provision of the AndhraPradesh Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid(Regualation) Act, 1988 (Act 22/1988). Accordingly, in partialmodification of the orders/instructions issued in the references3[rd] to 6[th] read above, so far as Private Aided EducationalInstitutions (i.e. Primary, Upper Primary and High Schools) areconcerned, the following orders are issued:-

i)To fill up all the existing vacant Grant-in-aid teacherposts and Non-teaching staff by the managements dulyfollowing the rule 12 (except sub-rule 6) of the AndhraPradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment,Recognition, Administration and Control of School underPrivate Managements) Rules, 1993 issued inG.O.Ms.No.1/ Education (PS-2) Department, dated 01-01-1994.posts and Non-teaching staff by the managements dulyfollowing the rule 12 (except sub-rule 6) of the AndhraPradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment,Recognition, Administration and Control of School underPrivate Managements) Rules, 1993 issued inG.O.Ms.No.1/ Education (PS-2) Department, dated 01-01-1994.

ii)While filling up the posts under Grant-in-Aid, emolumentsand pay scales shall be in accordance with theGovernment pattern i.e. as per the orders issued in thereference 7[th] read above and the Grant-in-Aid institutionsshall follow the established recruitment procedure asprescribed in rule 12 (except sub-rule 6) of the AndhraPradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment,Recognition, Administration and Control of School underPrivate Managements) Rules, 1993.and pay scales shall be in accordance with theGovernment pattern i.e. as per the orders issued in thereference 7[th] read above and the Grant-in-Aid institutionsshall follow the established recruitment procedure asprescribed in rule 12 (except sub-rule 6) of the AndhraPradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment,Recognition, Administration and Control of School underPrivate Managements) Rules, 1993.

iii)All the teaching posts eligible as per the provision of theAndhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 (Act 22/1988) shall be placedbefore the Grant-in-Aid committee i.e., High LevelCommittee under the Chairmanship of Commissioner andDirector of School Education, Hyderabad.Andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 (Act 22/1988) shall be placedbefore the Grant-in-Aid committee i.e., High LevelCommittee under the Chairmanship of Commissioner andDirector of School Education, Hyderabad.

6. Where the managements of Private Aided Institutionshave already obtained permission from the competentauthorities and filled up the vacant posts duly following therecruitment procedure, the competent authorities concernedshall approve such appointments forthwith and to issuenecessary orders in the matter. However, they should followthe payment procedure as prescribed in the G.O. 7[th] readabove.

7. Extreme care may be taken in respect of the qualified un-aided staff who were appointed against the sanctioned postsand as per the recruitment procedure, and whoseappointments were approved by the competent authorities forconsideration of absorption in the respective posts dulyfollowing the seniority, qualifications etc., in accordance withlaw. In such cases, the following guidelines shall also befollowed:-

i)The posts should have been sanctioned by thecompetent authority as per the teacher pupil ratio.competent authority as per the teacher pupil ratio.

ii)The candidate must possess the qualifications asprescribed for each category of post for Government /Local Body Teachers.prescribed for each category of post for Government /Local Body Teachers.

iii)If more than one candidate is working in a sanctioned un-aided post of same cadre and all of them satisfy theconditions prescribed, absorption in the vacant aidedposts shall be done as per seniority in un-aided posts.aided post of same cadre and all of them satisfy theconditions prescribed, absorption in the vacant aidedposts shall be done as per seniority in un-aided posts.

iv)Where there is a feeder category for promotion, thevacant aided posts shall be filled in the ratio of 2 : 1 i.e. 1[st]and 2[nd] posts by promotion and 3[rd] by direct recruitment /absorption.vacant aided posts shall be filled in the ratio of 2 : 1 i.e. 1[st]and 2[nd] posts by promotion and 3[rd] by direct recruitment /absorption.

v)These guidelines are applicable for teachers alreadyworking in unaided posts and shall not be applied forfuture appointees in unaided posts.working in unaided posts and shall not be applied forfuture appointees in unaided posts.

vi)In future there shall not be any approval by thedepartment for recruitment to un-aided post and hence noquestion of any absorption in future. The managementmay fill up unaided posts, if they require as per the staffingpattern and teacher pupil ratio with their own funds.”department for recruitment to un-aided post and hence noquestion of any absorption in future. The managementmay fill up unaided posts, if they require as per the staffingpattern and teacher pupil ratio with their own funds.”

Statutory Provisions:

Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982

2. Definitions:

(12) "competent authority" means any person, officer orauthority authorised by the Government by notification toperform the functions of the competent authority under this Actfor such area or for such purposes as may be specified in thenotification; Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment,Recognition, Administration and Control) Rules, 1993:

2(1)(b). “Educational agency” means, the Society/Trust/Association including Endowment Board/Wakf Board andChristian Mission (Church/Diocese or congregation) and thelike, sponsoring/managing/running the schools; 2(1)(e). “Competent Authority” means the authority who isvested with the powers of granting permission and/orrecognition to schools;

3. Competent Authorities:

For the purpose of these rules, the following shall be thecompetent authority:

10. Conditions Governing permission/Recognition:

In addition to specific conditions that may be prescribedin individual cases, every permission/ recognition granted tothe schools under these rules shall be subject to the followingconditions:

…

(12). that the Teacher pupil ratio in respect of the pre-primaryschools shall not exceed 1 : 20 and in respect of all otherSchools, the ratio shall not exceed 1 : 40.

Ratio decidendi

(17). that when private aided Schools are forced to be closeddown for any reason or whenever the management of theSchool goes out of the way to remove any of its staff membersor whenever there is fall in strength in a private aided schoolfor two consecutive academic years, the Competent Authoritymay transfer the staff along with the posts to any other needyprivate aided or Local Body School within the district;

(32). that the educational agency shall carry out all theinstructions issued by the Government and other competentdepartmental authorities relating to making of admission ofstudents, appointment of staff and also relating to otheracademic and administrative affairs, in the interest ofacademic standards and smooth functioning of the institutions,from time to time;

12. Appointment of staff:

(1). The educational agency shall appoint staff as per thestaffing pattern prescribed by Government from time to time. All staff shall conform to the qualifications prescribed byGovernment from time to time;

(2). All the staff teaching as well as non-teaching shall berecruited through staff Selection Committee to be constitutedby the educational agency in accordance with these rules;

(3). All the posts shall be advertised in at least two NewsPapers having large circulation of which one shall be inTelugu;

(4). All educational institutions receiving grant-in-aid fromGovernment shall notify vacancies to the EmploymentExchange and in addition, advertisements in the NewsPapers, that they shall also be required to call the candidatessponsored by Employment Exchange for test and interviewprovided that the persons applying to the post in response tothe advertisement in the news papers should have gotregistered their name in any Employment Exchange in theState.

(5). Aided Schools shall also be required to have a nomineeof the District Educational Officer not below the rank of DeputyEducational Officer in the Staff Selection Committee. Theeducational agency shall fix the selection process(test/interview) in consultation with the District EducationalOfficer or his nominee and shall afford the D.E.O’s nominee areasonable opportunity of being present. The selectionhowever, shall not be vitiated only on the ground of absence ofD.E.O’s nominee if the educational agency has offeredreasonable explanation. The burden of proving this shall liewith the educational agency;

(8). All appointments made either teaching or non-teachingstaff by aided or un-aided institutions shall be subject to theapproval of the competent authority. For this purpose, theeducational agency shall inform the competent authority withinone month of the selection. The competent authority shallgrant approval unless the selection has been in violation ofthese rules. If the approval is not granted within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of the proposals in respect of unaidedposts, the approved shall be deemed to have been granted. Inorder to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on theeducational agency to remind the competent authority onemonth after the initial communication, if no approval isreceived. The burden of proof of having communicated theselection to the competent authority shall lie with theeducational agency;

13. Staff Selection Committee:

13. Staff Selection Committee:

1) The Staff Selection Committee shall consist of thefollowing persons as members:following persons as members:

a)President of educational agency or his nominee; b)Correspondent/Secretary/Manager of theInstitutions;Institutions;

c)Headmaster/Principal of the Institution; d)Two subject experts, to be selected by theeducational agency from the panel approved by theDistrict Educational Officer. Of these, at least oneshould be the Head Master of a recognized school;educational agency from the panel approved by theDistrict Educational Officer. Of these, at least oneshould be the Head Master of a recognized school;e)In respect of aided schools, an officer of theEducation Department not below the rank of DeputyEducational Officer nominated by the DistrictEducational Officer.Education Department not below the rank of DeputyEducational Officer nominated by the DistrictEducational Officer.

2) The President of the educational agency can either bethe Chairman; or nominate one of the members of the StaffSelection Committee to be the Chairman;the Chairman; or nominate one of the members of the StaffSelection Committee to be the Chairman;

3) The quorum for the Staff Selection Committee meetingsshall be four.shall be four.

The additional papers filed by the learned Advocate Generalshows that in the High Level Meeting conducted by the Chief Ministeron 8-10-2004, various decisions were taken including the onerelating to the Education Department. Paragraph 17 of the Minutes ofthat meeting recorded by Principal Secretary (School Education)reads as under:

“The necessity of continuance of grant-in-aid posts wasdiscussed in detail. It was suggested by Secretary (Services)that it may not be expedient to wind up the posts which arealready in existence, simply for the reason as some of theseinstitutions which are getting grant-in-aid are doing betterservice to the public. The CM said that in that case, thereshould not be any necessity to create new posts of grant-in-aid.”

These Minutes bear the stamp of the office of the Chief Minister dated 14-10-2004 and Principal Secretary to Government, Education (SE) dated 15-10-1994. The same werecirculated to various departments. Thereafter, Principal Secretary (W& P) recorded note dated 19-10-2004, which reads as under:

“Kindly refer to the Minutes of the High Level Meetingconducted by Hon’ble C.M. At Point No.17, the issue ofgrant-in-aid posts was discussed. The decision was that no newposts of Grant-in-aid would be created and the existingvacancies will also not be filled up, except what has beenspecifically authorized since there is a General ban onrecruitment except for the posts, for which permission wasspecifically granted by the Government. The Minutes maykindly be amended accordingly.”

It is not borne out from the record whether the abovereproduced note was put up before the Hon’ble Chief Minister or theEducation Minister, but this much is evident that in furtherance of thesaid note, Memo No.12080/COSE/A2/2004-4 dated 20-10-2004 wasissued for replacing paragraph 17 of the Minutes recorded on thebasis of the meeting held on 8-10-2004. The amended paragraph 17reads as under:

“No new posts of Grant-in-Aid would be created and theexisting vacancies will also not be filled up, except what hasbeen specifically authorized since there is a General ban onrecruitment except for the posts for which permission wasspecifically granted by the Government.”

We may have delved deep into the issue whether the notedated 19-10-2004 recorded by Principal Secretary (W & P) andconsequential Memo dated 20-10-2004 could be treated as thedecision taken in the meeting held on 8-10-2004 under theChairmanship of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and whether Memo dated20-10-2004 was issued in accordance with the rules of businessframed under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, but in view of ourconclusion that the said Memo does not have the effect of stultifying

the process of recruitment initiated by the management of the privateschools prior to 20-10-2004, we do not consider it necessary to finallypronounce on this issue.

An analysis of the provisions reproduced above shows that theterm ‘competent authority’ defined under Section 2 (12) means anyperson, officer or authority who is specifically authorized by thegovernment by notification to perform the functions of the competentauthority for such area or for such purposes as may be specified inthe notification. Section 2 (1)(e) of the 1993 Rules defines the‘competent authority’ as an authority, which is vested with the powersof granting permission and/or recognition to schools as envisagedunder Rule 10.

Rule 3 lays down that for the purposes of the 1993 Rules, thespecified authorities shall be the competent authorities. For Pre-Primary, Primary and Upper Primary Schools and Oriental Schools,District Educational Officer is the competent authority and forSecondary Schools, Regional Joint Director is the competentauthority. Rule 10 (12) lays down that the teacher-pupil ratio inrespect of pre-primary schools shall not exceed 1 : 20 and in respect of all other schools, the ratio shall not exceed 1 :40. Clause (17) of Rule 10 empowers the ‘competent authority’ totransfer the staff along with the posts to any other needy private aidedor local body school if any particular school is forced to close down orwhen there is a fall in the strength for two consecutive academicyears. Rules 12 and 13 enumerate the steps to be taken for makingappointment of staff by the management of the private aidededucational institutions. These include advertisement of the post,constitution of Staff Selection Committee. Clause (8) of Rule 12postulates approval of the competent authority as a condition for validappointment of teaching or non-teaching staff by aided or unaided institutions. Of course, this clause also provides for deemed approvalin case the competent authority fails to take necessary action withintwo months from the date of receipt of the proposals in respect ofunaided posts.

The 1993 Rules have been framed by the State Government inexercise of the power conferred upon it under Section 99 read withSections 20, 21, 79, 80 and 83 of the 1982 Act. The same werepublished in Andhra Pradesh Gazette dated 3-1-1994 and werecirculated vide G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 1-1-1994. It is, thus, evident that for the purpose of recruitment ofteachers against the aided posts, the State Government has, by virtueof Rule 3 of the 1993 Rules, designated the District EducationalOfficers and Regional Joint Directors of School Education as thecompetent authorities. They have the power to grant or refusepermission to the management of private schools to make recruitmentagainst the vacant posts. They also have the power to approve orrefuse approval to the appointment made by the management on therecommendations made by the Staff Selection Committee constitutedunder Rule 13 of the 1993 Rules. The definition of the term‘competent authority’ contained in Rule 2 (1)(e) is relevant for thepurpose of granting permission and/or recognition to schools and notfor the purpose of recruitment of teaching and non-teaching staff.

If the decision contained in Memo dated 20-10-2004 is read inthe light of the above interpretation of the relevant rules, we do nothave any hesitation to approve the view taken by the learned SingleJudges that the ban imposed on the recruitment against existingvacancies is not applicable to the cases in which permission hadalready been granted by the District Educational Officer or theRegional Joint Director. Such permission will have to be construedas a specific authorization by the competent authority for the purpose of making recruitment against the existing post.

The argument of the learned Advocate General that the StateGovernment is the sole repository of power to accord sanction forrecruitment of staff in the aided institutions is meritless and is liable tobe rejected because the State Government has specificallyauthorized the District Educational Officers and the Regional JointDirector to perform the functions of ‘competent authorities’ for thepurposes of the 1993 Rules, which necessarily include Rules 10 to13. If any other interpretation of the term ‘competent authority’ isgiven, then the delegation of power by the State Government to theauthorities specified in Rule 3 would become otiose. Indeed, it isneither the pleaded case of the appellants nor the learned AdvocateGeneral has argued that Rule 3 was amended, modified or repealedby a notification issued by the State Government in exercise of thepower vested in it under Section 99 read with Sections 20, 21, 79, 80and 83 of the 1982 Act.

We shall now consider whether rationalization exerciseundertaken by the authorities of the Education Department and theconsequential decision to declare some teachers surplus in someschools and transferring / absorbing them in other schools is legallysustainable.

Rule 10 of the 1993 Rules enumerates the conditions which arerequired to be fulfilled for grant of permission / recognition to theschools. Clause (12) of Rule 10 lays down that the teacher – pupilratio in respect of primary schools shall not exceed 1 : 20 and inrespect of other schools, the ratio shall not exceed 1 : 40. Clause(17) lays down that when private aided schools are forced to closedown or whenever the management of such school goes out of wayto remove any of its staff member or whenever there is a fall in the strength in a private aided school for two consecutive academicyears, the competent authority can transfer the staff along with thepost to any other needy private aided or local body school within thedistrict. To put it differently, the transfer of staff from one school to theother is permissible only in either of the following contingencies:

1) when the private aided school is forced to be closed;

2) when the management of the school goes out of way toremove its staff; andremove its staff; and

3) when there is a fall in the strength of private aided school fortwo consecutive academic years.two consecutive academic years.

In the cases before us, the teachers have been declaredsurplus neither on account of forced closure of the private aidedschools nor as a sequel to their removal by the management. Rather,the admitted case of the parties is that the teachers were declaredsurplus on the basis of exercise undertaken by the departmentalauthorities pursuant to interim order dated 31-10-2005 passed by the Division Bench. Since that order does notlay down any criteria for rationalization, we shall have to fall back onthe relevant rules and the norms laid down by the government videG.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005, the relevant portions of which arereproduced below:

“G.O.Ms.No.103 Dated:5th August,2005,

Read the following:

1. G.O.Ms.No.39, Education(Ser.V) Dept., dated:03.05.2002

2. G.O.Ms.No.96-Edn.(Ser.II) Deptt., dt.25-7-2005

3. From the DSE, Hyd., Lr.Rc.No.1200/C3-1/2005, dt.28-6-2005.

&&&

ORDER:

In the G.O read above, certain norms have been

prescribed for staffing pattern for the purpose ofrationalization of staff under various managements viz.,Government, Zilla Parishad, Mandal Parishad, Municipal,Private aided Schools.

The Director of School Education, Hyderabad hasreported in his letter 3[rd] cited, some District EducationalOfficers that there is a need to rationalize the schools andposts in Primary, Upper Primary and High Schools as thereare some schools with over strength of students and lesssanctioned teaching posts and some schools withuneconomic strength of students with more teachers.

The Government after careful consideration herebyissue the following norms of staff pattern for rationalization ofstaff under various managements in supercession of theorders issued in the reference 1[st] read above.

1. CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEE:

The Committee consists of the following:-

1. District Collector – Chairman

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad – Member

3. Municipal Commissioner/Correspondent

of the Aided Management concerned – Member

4. District Educational Officer – Member-Secretary The Committee is the competent to rationalize theschool and staffing pattern under various managements i.e.,Government (including Zilla Parishad & Mandal PrajaParishad Schools), Municipal and Private Aided Schools.2. NORMS FOR RATIONALIZATION OF SCHOOLS:Schools with same medium of instruction(Government/Zilla Parishad/Mandal Praja Parishad /Muncipal & Private Aided).

i) If two or more Primary Schools are functioning in thesame premises both/all the schools shall beamalgamated into a single Primary School.

ii) If two or more Upper Primary Schools are functioningin the same premises both/all the schools shall beamalgamated into a single Upper Primary School.

iii) If two or more High Schools are functioning in the same premises both/all the schools shall beamalgamated into a single High School.

iv) If two or more Primary and Upper Primary Schoolsare functioning in the same premises both/all theschools shall be amalgamated into a single UpperPrimary School.

v) If two or more Primary and High Schools arefunctioning in the same premises they shall beamalgamated in such a way, that only one PrimarySchool and one High School shall function in the samepremises.

vi) If two or more Upper Primary Schools and HighSchools are functioning in the same premises, thenthe Primary School of the Upper Primary School shallbe separated as a Primary School with classes I to Vand the Upper Primary sections of 6[th] and 7[th] classshall be amalgamated with High School. Thereforethere shall be one Primary School and one High Schoolwill function in the premises.

vii) If Primary, Upper Primary and High School arefunctioning in the same premises, then the Primarysections of Upper Primary School shall beamalgamated with the primary school and the UpperPrimary sections (Class VI + VII) shall be (class VI + VII)amalgamated with the High School and on the wholetwo schools i.e. one Primary and one High School shallonly function.

viii) In case of two or more schools running in the samepremises with different media of instruction then, theschools with same medium shall be amalgamated suchthat there shall be schools with single medium only.

ix) The Girls High Schools shall not be amalgamatedwith co-education or Boys High Schools.

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOLS:

i) The posts would be allotted to the schools as per theprescribed staff pattern.

ii) The surplus posts shall be shifted to the needyschools, in order of gravity of need as per locality ofschools and strength. The surplus posts shall beshifted to the schools located in Category IV area firstand then to III, II & I areas. Even in the Category IV areathe order of allotment shall be made based on strengthonly. (The strength as on 30th September of theprevisous year shall be taken for this purpose).

iii) The surplus teachers shall be transferred underrationalization through counseling as perG.O.Ms.No102, S.E (Ser.VI) Department, dt: 05-08-2005.

4. NORMS FOR STAFF PATTERN:

i) Primary Schools:

A minimum of 2 Secondary Grade Teachers couldbe provided to a Primary School having a strength upto100. One additional teacher may be provided for every40 students over and above the strength of 100.

Example:- For a strength of 101 to 140 - 3 SGTs ; fora strength of 141 to 180 - 4 S.G.Ts and so on

ii) Upper Primary Schools:

a) Classes I to V: Secondary Grade Teachers could beprovided as per the norms prescribed for PrimarySchools.

b) Classes VI & VII: The optimum strength of a class/Section is 40. The second section of a class is formedif the strength of class exceeds 60. Third section couldbe formed if the strength of the class exceeds 100. Similarly 4[th], 5[th] sections etc., could be formed.

c) The following minimum number of teachers could be provided to every Upper Primary School:

School Assistant (Social Studies) - OneSchool Assistant (Mathematics/ Sciences (Biological Sciences/Physical Sciences) - One Language Pandit (1[st] Language ) - OneLanguage Pandit (2[nd] Language) - One

d) If the number of sections is more than two, additionalpost of School Assistants could be provided @ one persection. The following order could be followed forproviding School Assistants for additional sections:

1. School Assistant (Social Studies)

2. School Assistant

(Science[Biological Sciences/ Physical

Sciences]) (If School Assistant (Mathematics) is already working)

OR

School Assistant (Mathematics)

(If School Assistant (Science) is already working)

e) One Additional Language Pandit shall be provided ifthe workload exceeds 30 periods per week. TwoAdditional Language Pundits could be provided if theworkload exceeds 60 periods per week and so on.

iii) High Schools:

a. Classes VI to X: The optimum strength of a class/section is 40. The second section of a class could beformed if the strength of class exceeds 60. Thirdsection could be formed if the strength of the classexceeds 100 similarly 4[th], 5[th] sections etc., shall beformed.

b. The following minimum number of Teachers could beprovided for every High School:

Head Master - 1School Assistant (Mathematics) - 1School Assistant (English) - 1School Assistant (Physical Science) - 1School Assistant (Biological Science) - 1School Assistant (Social Studies) - 1School Assistant (Language)/ (1st Language) -1 or 2

School Assistant (Language)/ (2nd Language) -1School Assistant (Physical Education/PET) - 1

c. If the number of sections in a School are more thanfive (5) the additional teachers could be provided fornon-language subjects and English in the followingorder of priority.

School Assistant (Mathematics) School Assistant (English) School Assistant (Physical Science) School Assistant (Biological Science) School Assistant (Social Studies)

d. One Additional School Assistant (Language) couldbe provided if the workload exceeds 30 periods perweek. Two Additional School Assistant (Language)shall be provided if the workload exceeds 60 periodsper week and so on.

e. One Additional School Assistant (PhysicalEducation/ Physical Education Teacher) could beprovided if the strength exceeds 400. Two additionalSchool Assistants (Physical Education)/ PhysicalEducation Teacher shall be provided if the strengthexceeds 800 and so on.

Teachers in (Arts, Music, Dance, Drawing etc.)may be provided as per requirement i.e., One teacherfor a work load of 30 periods per week.

Note:- Primary School sections shall be detachedfrom High Schools.

5. NORMS FOR SHIFTING OF SURPLUS POSTS DUE TO UNECONOMIC STRENGTH:

i) xxx xxx xxx xxx

ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx

iii) Aided Schools

The posts shall be shifted to other Schools underthe same management within the District if there is aneed. If not, the posts shall be shifted to Government/Zilla Parishad/ Mandal Parishad Schools located in category IV, III, II, I areas in that order if there is a need. The surplus man power in the aided schools willonly be transferred against the sanctioned and vacantposts in another aided school of the same managementor of a different management.”

Here it is also appropriate to refer to the instructions issued bythe Director vide proceedings Rc.No.140/ B2-1/2005, dated 3-11-2005. The same read as under:

“All the Regional Joint Directors of School Educationand District Educational Officers in the State are informed thatthe Hon’ble High Court has issued orders on 31-10-2005 in writ appeals filed by the department to take upthe rationalization work in private aided schools by 21-11-2005.

Therefore, all the Regional Joint Directors of SchoolEducation and District Educational Officers in the State arerequested to take up the rationalization work in private aidedschools as per the guidelines issued below and as per thenorms issued in Government orders 1[st] read above. ProformaI, II, III and annexure are enclosed.

1) The District Educational Officer should constitute No. ofteams consisting three members of each team withHM/Lecturers of training colleges.teams consisting three members of each team withHM/Lecturers of training colleges.

2) Each team should visit 20 aided schools within a weekand submit the report to the DEO in the prescribed format I,II and III.and submit the report to the DEO in the prescribed format I,II and III.

3) Each member of the team and Assistant Director shouldsign in the proforma with the name and designation withseal.sign in the proforma with the name and designation withseal.

4) The DEO should take up rationalization work on war footbasis and it should be completed by 14.11.2005 positively. The report should be submitted to the Director of SchoolEducation by 16-11-2005 in soft copy and hard copy throughe-mail/special messenger in the annexure without fail so as toenable to submit the same to the Government / Hon’ble HighCourt.”

A combined reading of the relevant extracts of G.O.Ms.No.103dated 5-8-2005 issued by the State Government and proceedingsdated 3-11-2005 issued by the Director shows that while theinstructions issued by the government envisaged constitution of thecommittee comprising of District Collector, Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Correspondent of the school concerned and DistrictEducational Officer, the committee constituted by the Director did nothave any representative of the management of the private school. Itis, thus, evident that the committees constituted by the Director werenot in consonance with the policy framed by the government. Notonly this, while instructing the committees to visit the schools, theDirector did not remind them of the parameters laid down by thegovernment for rationalization of the schools and staff. It is, therefore,reasonable to take the view that the exercise for rationalization wasundertaken by the authorities of the Education Department inviolation of the norms prescribed by the State Government. Even if itis assumed that the Director could constitute committees comprisingHead Master / Lecturers of training colleges and the non-involvementof the representative of the aided schools in the exercise ofrationalization undertaken in pursuance of order dated 31-10-2005passed by this Court is inconsequential, we are also inclined to agreewith the learned counsel for the petitioners that the recommendationsmade by the committees constituted by the Director, which resulted indeclaration of some teachers as surplus in some schools and theirconsequential absorption in other schools was farce. In most of thewrit petitions, affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondentsto controvert the assertion that the teams constituted by the Directorvisited the schools without giving any notice to the Correspondent orHead Master and did not check the records relating to attendance ofthe students. Not only this, in some of the cases, the teams visited on a day it was heavily raining and, on that account, majority of thestudents did not come to the schools. Even in the counter-affidavit ofShri P. Krishnaiah, filed in Writ Petition No.25215 of 2005, thisposition has not been specifically denied. It is not the pleaded caseof the State and its functionaries that the teams constituted by theDirector had taken note of clauses (12) and (17) of Rule 10 of the1993 Rules and then made recommendations which resulted in someteachers being rendered surplus. Therefore, it must be held that theexercise for rationalization undertaken by the departmentalauthorities is violative of Rule 10 (17) read with Rule 10 (12) and thenorms prescribed by the government vide G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005.

In view of the above conclusion, we do not consider itnecessary to adjudicate on the vires of G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 5-8-2005. However, we feel that it will be more prudent for thegovernment to examine the entire issue objectively and takecorrective measures if it is found that the norms are contrary to theprovisions contained in Rule 10 (12) or 10 (17) of the 1993 Rules.

In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The writ petitions filedby the management of the private schools and others are allowed. Now, the management of the private schools shall be free to appointselected candidates and seek approval of such appointments fromthe competent authority.

The exercise of rationalization undertaken in furtherance ofinterim order dated 31-10-2005 passed by this Court and directionscontained in letter dated 3-11-2005 issued by the Director of SchoolEducation are quashed. However, it is made clear that this ordershall not prevent the competent authorities from undertaking freshexercise for rationalization, which may lead to declaration of certain teachers’ surplus and for absorption of such surplus teachers. Needless to say that any person adversely affected by the freshexercise to be undertaken by the competent authorities shall be freeto challenge the same by availing appropriate legal remedy. All the miscellaneous petitions are disposed of as infructuous.

G.S. SINGHVI, CJ

G. V. SEETHAPATHY, J

December 29, 2006

svs

[1](2002) 1 ALD 96 (DB)