B.G. & B.K. Girls High School v. Sri D.Sambasasiva Rao, Secretary Education

Sri D.Sambasasiva Rao, Secretary Education (P.S.) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.C.NO.700 OF 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed complaining that the orders of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.35122 of 2005 in W.P.No.27345 of 2005, dated 25.4.2008, have been wilfully violated and deliberately disobeyed and as such the respondents are liable to be punished under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. This Court by the aforesaid order dated 25.4.2008 directed the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Education (P.S) Department, to place the matter before the high level committee to consider as to whether the petitioner’s institution is entitled to admission of grant-in-aid to 22 teaching and 6 non-teaching posts in its school without any reference to the ban orders. It is stated that pursuant to the said orders of this Court the first respondent vide memo No.6349/SE-PS.II/A2/2008, dated 25.7.2008, gave instructions to the Director of School Education, Hyderabad to place the proposals before the high level committee and a reminder was also issued on 6.3.2009. Accordingly, the Director of School Education placed the proposals before the high level committee on 5.8.2010, without any reference to ban orders as per the orders of this Court and obtained the report and submitted the same to the Government on 5.8.2010 and the Government after examining the said report of the high level committee issued orders in G.O.Rt.No.454, Education, dated 10.8.2010. The orders of the Government G.O.Rt.No.454, Education (SE-PS) Department, dated

10.8.2010, were also enclosed which indicate Government examined the matter taking into account the recommendation of the high level committee and rejected the request for admission of 22 teaching and 6 non-teaching posts into grant-in-aid in respect of petitioner’s school without reference to the ban orders on the ground that the school is not existing before the cut-off date of 1.9.1985 as per the provisions of Act 22 of 1998. In the light of the aforesaid orders of the Government, though there was delay on the part of the respondents, I am not inclined to express any opinion with regard to the merits of the case. However, it is for the petitioner to question the legality and validity of the said rejection orders. The contempt case is accordingly dismissed. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 27.8.2010