IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 9245 of 2008 Between: V. Nireekshana Rao S/o Late V. Isreal Northern Circars Elementary Schools in Krishna District,. R/o Vuyyuru Town & Mandal, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Educational Officer, Krishna district at machilipatnam. 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education Kakinada, East Godavari District. 3 The Director of School Education Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 The Convenor, Education Committee CBCNC, Gudivada, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus, declaringthe action ofthe respondents in not according the approval/ratification for continuation perios of correspondent ship of the petitioner in Aided Elementary Schools of CBCNC in Krishna District inspite of continuation Letter dt 02-02-2008 given by the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, irrational and violative of Art. 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequenty direct the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Correspondent of Elementary Schools of CBCNC in Krishna District for continuationperiod in Pursuance of the representation dt 14-02-2008 made by the petitioner and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : Oral order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Lakashminarayana Reddy and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. The petitioner seeks a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in according approval/ratification for continuance of Correspondentship of the petitioner in respect of the Aided Elementary Schools of CBCNC in Krishna District is illegal and seeks a direction to the respondents to approve the appointment and continuance of the petitioner as the Correspondent. The petitioner was appointed as a Correspondent of the CBCNC Aided Elementary Schools and is functioning as such till date. Earlier 1st respondent had approved the proposal for the recognition of the Correspondentship of the petitioner by proceedings dated 22-1-2001. While so, in January, 2008 a new committee for the CBCNC was constituted and the 4th respondent elected by the General body of the Education committee of CBCNC as the Convenor. The petitioner by a representation dated 29-1-2008 addressed the 4th respondent for continuation of his Correspondentship of the Aided Elementary Schools. The 4th respondent-committee by a resolution dated 1-2-2008 proposed continuation of the petitioner as Correspondent of the CBCNC Elementary Schools and communicated this resolution to the petitioner. On that basis, on 14-2- 2008 the petitioner represented to the 1st respondent for recognition as a Correspondent, in the light of the powers conferred under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. Despite the representation of the petitioner dated 14- 2-2008 the 1st respondent has not acted, is the complaint in this writ petition. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader for School Education would contend that the 1st respondent is not the competent authority at present to recognize Correspondentship and that it is the District Collector who is the competent authority to recognize or grant approval of the Correspondentship of Aided Elementary Schools in terms of the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.14, Education (SE-PS.1) Department, dated 24-2-2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that it is the 1st respondent who is the competent authority and it is the 1st respondent which could consider grant or approval of Correspondentship. The District Collector, Khammam District is not impleaded as party respondent in this writ petition. Therefore, no direction could be issued to the said authority. The 1st respondent is the District Educational Officer, Krishna District. Admittedly the other respondents are not the competent authorities to grant/approve Correspondentship. In the light of the competing positions as to the identify of the competent authority, this Court disposes of the writ petition as under: In the above circumstances, if the 1st respondent is the competent authority to grant or approve Correspondentship for Aided Elementary Schools, then the 1st respondent shall consider the petitioner’s representation, dated 14-2-2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the discretion conferred on the 1st respondent and communicate the same to the petitioner. Should the 1st respondent consider that he is not the competent authority, the 1st respondent may communicate such a decision to the petitioner. The petitioner will then be at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in the light of the decision of the 1st respondent. Nothing in this order shall be construed as a pronouncement on the merits of the petitioner’s claim for recognition as the Correspondent nor on the merits of the petitioner’s assertion as to the 1st respondent’s competence as the competent authority for approval of Correspondentship. The writ petition is disposed of as above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J April 30, 2008 GRR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies