IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14999 of 2009 Between: 1 The Methodist Church in India, Regional Conference, Governing Body, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Secretary - K.Yesu Dass, S/o. K.Venkataiah, Aged about 58 yrs, R/o. 17-1-388/P/61, Saidabad, Hyderabad. 2 Stanley Girls high School, Rep. by its Principal & Correspondent, Chappal Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of A.P., Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 3 District Educational Officer, Hyderabad District at Hyderabad. 4 Deputy Educational Officer, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction preferably one in the nature of Writ Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not passing any order on the representations of the 2nd petitioner dated 12.12.2008 to enable the petitioners for retrenchment of excess staff of the 2nd petitioner School as arbitrary, illegal and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to pass appropriate orders on the said representations of the 2nd petitioner forthwith, and to pass such other necessary orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.J.KANAKAIAH Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14999 of 2009 ORDER: The second petitioner-a Girls School at Hyderabad has been established by the first petitioner society. Having regard to the severe financial crisis, the Governing Body of the first petitioner-society resolved to reduce the strength of the staff and accordingly the second petitioner has sought permission of the second respondent-Regional Joint Director of Education as required under Rule 10(12) of the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994. Pursuant thereto, the second respondent called for a report from the third respondent and in turn the second petitioner was called upon to furnish the details. Though all the necessary particulars were furnished, the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take any further steps. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the part of the respondents, this writ petition is filed. The material placed before this Court shows that the application of the second petitioner dated 12.12.2008 was received in the Office of the second respondent on 07.01.2009 and thereafter by letter dated 24.02.2009 the third respondent was requested to furnish his remarks. In response to the third respondent’s letter dated 13.03.2009, the second petitioner has also furnished the necessary information and the same was acknowledged in the third respondent’s Office on 26.03.2009. In the circumstances, the respondents are bound to take further steps and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion as to the entitlement of the second petitioner for reduction of the excess staff, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation of the second petitioner dated 12.12.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. __________ 27.07.2009 Rns ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2 CD copies ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2 CD copies