THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 3473 OF 2007 O R D E R: In the field of Education, the Government did make substantial progress, in past decades, by establishing institutions of its own, at primary and higher levels. Recognising that it is not able to cater to the needs of common men through its institutions, the State has evolved the scheme of extending grant-in-aid to private institutions. Inasmuch as substantial burden of the institution, towards payment of salaries, is met by the Government, the fee structure in these institutions was relatively affordable and thereby, it enabled the citizens, to pursue education to any level, in the institutions of this nature. A strange development has taken place, in the recent past. Spending on education appears to have been treated as a burden to the exchequer, even while millions and trillions of rupees were allocated for populous, unproductive and attractive schemes. The result is that not only the Government institutions are starved of regular appointments and allocation of funds, but even the aided-institutions are put on the closure process or mode. The Government took a policy decision, vide its memo dated 20.10.2004, banning the appointments of any kind in the aided institutions, even in cases, where, need existed. The petitioner is a high school in Krishna District, which was admitted to grant-in- aid, way back in the year 1982, as a primary school. The Government issued G.O.Ms.No.139, dated 15.2.1982, sanctioning four posts of Secondary Grade Teachers, with grant-in-aid. The strength of the school, at the relevant point of time, permitted utilization of only one vacancy. The strength appears to have increased by the year 1998. In view of the fact that three posts have lapsed, the petitioner approached the Government, which in turn, issued G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 27.8.1998, reviving or restoring the three vacancies. Following the procedure prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 27.8.1998, three incumbents were selected by the petitioner, against the three aided vacancies. The District Educational Officer, the 1st respondent, had approved the appointments and forwarded the list for approval by the 2nd respondent. The proposals were rejected by the 2nd respondent, vide their memo dated 11.6.2003, without stating any reasons. The petitioner filed W.P.No.24777 of 2003, challenging the said memo. In the counter affidavit filed in that writ petition, certain grounds were pleaded. This court found all of them, to be untenable, and ultimately, disposed of the writ petition, through orders dated 25.1.2006, setting aside the memo. Specific direction was issued to the respondents, to pass appropriate orders, to accord approval for the posts revived through G.O.Ms.No.318, dated 27.8.1998. Pretending to be incompliance with the said direction, the 3rd respondent issued a memo dated 16.11.2006, rejecting the proposals submitted by the petitioner. The only reason mentioned therein is that the Government imposed ban on filing up of the aided posts, vide memo dated 20.10.2004. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the reason furnished by the respondents is not applicable to the posts in question, since they were not only sanctioned, but also the appointment against the same, were made much prior to the said memo. It is also stated that this ground was not pleaded in the earlier writ petition and the respondents cannot be permitted to change their stand, from time to time. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, narrating the circumstances that led to issuance of memo, dated 20.10.2004. The various proceedings that ensued in relation to the said memo are also mentioned, and it is stated that the matter is now pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Heard Sri P. V. Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for School Education. The proposals submitted by the petitioner, for according approval for appointment, were rejected by the 3rd respondent, vide their memo dated 11.6.2003, with the following observation: “The attention of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, is invited to the references cited and he is informed that the proposal for absorption of 3 unaided SGT posts in to Grant in Aid posts, which were sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.139, Education Department, dated 15.2.1982 and revised in G.O.Ms.No.318, Education Department, dated 27.8.1998, is not feasible for compliance, hence negative.” No reason worth its name was mentioned. This memo was challenged in W.P.No.24777 of 2003. An attempt was made to plead certain reasons in the counter affidavit. Even they did not weigh with this court, and the memo dated 11.6.2003, was set aside, with a specific direction that the 1st respondent shall pass fresh orders. The 3rd respondent issued the memo dated 16.11.2006, after narrating the developments that have taken place, up to the setting aside of the same. He made the following observation: “The Government after careful consideration of the directions of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. in W.P.No.24777 of 2003, dt. 25.1.2006, hereby reject the request of the petitioners school for absorption of these three unaided Secondary Grade Teachers into Grant-in-aid posts in the light of the orders issued vide Government Memo No.12080/COSE/2004, dt. 20.10.2004, as there is ban on filling up of aided posts.” From this, it is evident that the only reason, on account of which the proposals submitted by the petitioner were rejected, is the ban imposed by the Government on 20.10.2004. Though the memo as such is not challenged in this writ petition, it is indeed shocking that the Government still pursues the policy of liquidating the Aided Institutions, by prohibiting appointments in such vacancies. It is just ununderstandable as to how the Government, or the authorities handling it, think that the institutions would function, without incumbents. The institutions have either to face closure or extinction, or have to function with inadequate staff. The consequences of such a situation are naturally to be borne by the poorer sections of the society, who cannot afford to admit their children in private institutions, by paying fabulous fees. Further, it is not as if there exists financial emergency in the State. Even if one goes by the public pronouncements made by the responsible authorities, it becomes clear that in none of its activities, any financial restraints are felt, and with each passing day new schemes are introduced, involving expenditure of thousands of crores. Such schemes may be laudable, but they cannot be operated, at the cost denying basic education to the poorer sections of the society. Be that as it may, the question as to whether the memo, dated 20.10.2004, would cover the cases, in which the appointment process was initiated before the date of its issuance, was dealt with by a Division Bench of this court in W.A.No.1578 of 2005 and batch. Through an elaborate judgment dated 29.12.2006, the Division Bench held that the memo, dated 20.10.2004, does not apply to the cases, where the appointment procedure was initiated, much prior to it. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside. In view of the fact that the matter of approval of the appointments in the petitioner institution was already delayed, by almost a decade, it is directed that the 3rd respondent shall pass orders, without reference to the memo dated 20.10.2004, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 1st August 2008 PAN