Methodist Rural High School, Garden Nagar, Zaheerabad, Medak District v. Government of A.P & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the
Provisions considered
Judgment
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26264 OF 2005
O R D E R: The petitioner is a private Educational Institution admitted to grant-in-aid. Substantial number of posts in it, are admitted to grant-in-aid. In the recent past, the Government has undertaken the process of rationalization, for the purpose of identifying the surplus posts, if any, in aided schools, and to transfer the posts together with the incumbents against the existing vacancies of aided teachers of identical category in the same District. Such a process has been the subject matter of the orders passed in various Writ petitions and Writ appeals. The District Educational Officer, Medak at Sangareddy, 4th respondent herein, issued proceedings, dated 15.11.2005, stating that one post each in the categories of PET, HP.II and SGT have been identified as surplus in the petitioner-School, and consequential orders have been passed on 18.11.2005, transferring the concerned teacher to other School.
The petitioner challenges the said proceedings. Sri P.Giri Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Government prescribed a detailed procedure to be followed in the matter of rationalization, through its order in G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 05.08.2005, and that though 30th September of the previous year was to be treated as the basis for ascertaining the strength for this purpose, the respondents have not followed the same. He has also placed reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, in this regard. It is also pointed out that the respondents did not undertake proper verification, particularly, in the context of the strength in the school for the relevant years, and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to put forward its case. The learned Government Pleader for School Education submits that the process of rationalization was undertaken, strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under various Government Orders, as well as the Judgments rendered by this Court.
He contends that being a pure question of fact, it cannot be canvassed before this Court. He further urges that a right of appeal is provided for, under Section 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’), and that the petitioner can avail the same. Through the impugned proceedings, the 4th respondent treated 3 posts of different categories of teachers in the petitioner-school as surplus, and had issued the consequential orders. The process of rationalization has been taken up by respondents 1 to 3, with a semblance of vigour, to ensure that the Government funds are not wasted, where the posts are not required, and fresh appointments be not made, where the vacancies exist. No exception can be taken to such an exercise. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court exhorted the respondents to undertake this exercise within a stipulated time. Respondents 1 to 3 were under obligation to ensure that the guidelines stipulated by them for this purpose are scrupulously followed.
Operative part
Any deviation, in this regard, would have its own impact, on the functioning of the Schools. The question as to whether the strength of students existing in the petitioner-School was ascertained, in accordance with the guidelines contained in G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 05.08.2005 and G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, cannot be adjudicated by this Court. Section 89 of the Act provides for an appeal against the orders passed by the different authorities. The order passed by the District Educational Officer is appealable to the Director of School Education, 2nd respondent herein. The interests of the petitioner can be protected, by directing the maintenance of status quo for some time. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 89 of the Act, before the 2nd respondent, narrating its grievances, within a period of one week from today.
Status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained, for a period of three weeks. The 2nd respondent shall examine the matter, and in case, the appeal is not disposed of within a period of two weeks from the date of presentation of the same, he shall pass appropriate orders to protect the interests of the petitioners, till the disposal of the appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ 8th December 2005 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. (B/o) PAN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 — s. 89.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Dec 2005. The bench was L NARASIMHA REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.