WP/21000/2026 of Lutheran Aided Primary School Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 28 July 2026

1. LUTHERAN AIDED PRIMARY SCHOOL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CORRESPONDENT

SRI MADASU ISAIAH

JAMPETA, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238

2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

FINANCE DEPARTMENT, TULLURU, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.522238

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, VENKATADRI TOWERS, OPP. DGP OFFICE BESIDES HAPPY RESORTS, ATMAKUR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.522503

4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, NEAR KOTTAGUMAM RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

ANDHRA PRADESH.533124

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following Order:

Heard Sri Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the maintenance grant to the petitioner’s schools for the academic year 2025-2026.

3. Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the earlier Judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 dated 30.09.2016 wherein it was held that: “21. In any view of the matter, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance grant in view of G.O.Ms.No.320, which was struck down by this Court in the Judgment referred supra. Even otherwise, the discriminatory attitude of the Government giving concession to one educational institution and denying benefit to the petitioner’s educational institution cannot be encouraged by the Courts, since it is arbitrary and discriminatory in not releasing grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s association whose object is to provide free education. In those circumstances, this

Court has no option except to hold that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary in not releasing the maintenance grant- in-aid to the petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as decided in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case. Hence, the respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @ 6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution, on par with other Schools.

22. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.”

4. Following the same, this Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of the observations and directions of this Court in the said case. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. Registry is directed to append a copy of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 dated 30.09.2016 to this order. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 29.07.2026 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 21000 OF 2026

Date: 29.07.2026 BSK