IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION NO : 24753 of 2004 AND WRIT PETITION NO. 1476 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO : 24753 of 2004 Between: A.Venku Reddy, s/o Ramana Reddy, Indukurpet Mandal, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt. of A.P., at Hyderabad. 2. The District Educational Officer, Nellore. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus, declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.720/B2-3/2003 dt.9-12-2004 on the file of the 1st respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec.24 of the Education Act as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and also suspend the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.S.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WRIT PETITION NO : 1476 of 2005 Between: M.K.R. High School Committee, rep. by its Life Member, Meda Ashok Kumar Reddy, S/o. Ramana Reddy, R/o. Auditya Nagar, Backside Auditya Jr. College, Nellore District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. The District Educational Officer, Nellore. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, preferably a writ in the nature of Mandamus, declaring the Proceedings in Rc.No. 720/B2-3/2003 dated 9.12.2004 on the file of the 1st respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Sec. 24 of the Education Act as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently suspend the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.S.VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Both the writ petitions arise out of the same proceedings, they can be disposed of by a common order. These two writ petitions are filed by the respective petitioners, seeking to declare the proceedings in Rc.No.720/B2-3/2003, dated 09.12.2004, on the file of the 1st respondent-The Commissioner and Director of School Education as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.1476 of 2005 that the school is governed by the provisions of A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). Section 24 of the said Act deals with appointment and removal of Manager of private institution. It reveals that as and when the competent authority is satisfied that the management is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, the competent authority may, after giving to such management an opportunity to make a representation and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspended the Management and appointed Special Officer till the reconstitution of the management. In such cases action shall be taken against the Manager by the Management as recommended by the competent authority. Therefore, there is clear distinction between the manager and the management. He states that continuance of 2nd respondent as Special Officer and the very issuance of the show cause notice are against Section 24 of the Act. The case of the petitioner in W.P.No.24753 of 2004 is that while he was working as Correspondent, government issued G.O.Ms.No.8 dated 30.1.2003 permitting the managements of private aided institutions to fill up the vacant posts of teaching and non-teaching. In pursuance of the said G.O., application was made by the petitioner and permission was accorded vide proceedings dated 2.6.2003. The said proceeding was followed by another proceeding dated 23.06.2002 wherein the 2nd respondent was nominated as member of Staff Selection Commission. One Mr M.Chandrasekhar Reddy filed O.P.No.454 of 2003 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nellore under the Societies Act questioning the continuance of the petitioner as correspondent and obtained interim injunction restraining him from participating in the selection process. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte interim injunction and the same was allowed. Against the same, M. Chandrasekhar Reddy filed C.M.A., which was dismissed and he continued to be incharge of the management in spite of dismissal of CMA. Assailing the inaction of the said Chandrasekhar, the petitioner filed WP.No.5765 of 2004. This Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition by an order, dated 5.11.2004. In pursuance of the orders of this Court, the respondent issued the impugned proceedings. Hence, the present writ petitions have been filed. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondents denying the allegations made by the petitioners. A short point false for consideration in these two writ petitions is with regard to the quashing of the proceedings in Rc.No.720/B2-3/2003, dated 09.12.2004 issued by the first respondent? Heard both the learned counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the show cause notice issued by the Director of School Education is in accordance with Section 24 of the A.P. Education Act and the allegations in the show cause notice read, as if, it was given against the Manager i.e. correspondent and therefore, the authority, who issued show cause notice has no jurisdiction under Section 24 of the Act. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for School Education contends that for continuing the Correspondent, certain allegations are leveled against him. It is appropriate to issue show cause notice calling for the explanation of the management and therefore, the show cause notice is complied in consonance with Section 24 of the Act as he is continuing beyond three years. Hence, the petitioners can as well give explanation to all the contentions raised in the writ petitions. Learned counsel contends that to certain allegations and complaints against the ex- correspondent, the Regional Joint Director, Guntur enquired into the matter and submitted a report. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no enquiry is pending and no charge sheet was issued insofar as the Management/Manager is concerned. The learned counsel also contends that the entire show cause notice reads as the allegations are leveled against the Manager for which the management alone is competent to take action, but not the Director of School Education. Section 24 (3) (a) and (b) reads that: “3(a) Where the competent authority is satisfied that the management is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, the competent authority may, after giving to such management an opportunity to make representation and for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend the management and appoint a special officer till the reconstitution of the management: Provided that in relation to a private institution, under the management of a charitable or religious institution, charitable or religious endowment and a wakf, the competent authority shall be the Government or an authority or officer authorized by the Government in this behalf. (provided further that no management of minority educational institution shall be suspended under this sub section save for mis- management) b) Where the competent authority is satisfied that the manager alone is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, action shall be taken against him by the management, as recommended by the competent authority.” So far as application under Section 24(3)(a) of the Act is concerned, when the management is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, the competent authority may, after giving an opportunity, suspend the management. The Commissioner of School Education is a competent authority insofar as suspending the management is concerned. There is a distinction between the Manager and the Management under Sub-Section 2 of Section 24, which reads as thus: “(2) The management shall, for the purposes of this Act, nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, whether called by the name of secretary, correspondent or by any other name, and intimate such nomination within thirty days thereof to the competent authority. Sub-Section 1 of Section 24 of the Act, which reads as thus: “1. The management of every private institution shall be constituted in such manner and shall consist of such number of members as may be prescribed: Provided that the Board of Trustees, or Governing Body or Wakf Board, by whatever name called, constituted or appointed under any other law for the time being in force relating to the charitable and religious institutions and endowments and wakfs, shall be deemed to be a management constituted under this sub-section. (Provided further that the constitution of the management under this Sub-section shall apply to a minority educational institution, in so far as it is not repugnant to Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution of India).” Therefore, both the definitions would go to show that the Manager is a person who manages the affairs of the institution and the Management means the managing committee. If the case falls under Section 3(b) of the A.P Education Act, then certainly the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners can be accepted. Whereas, if the case falls under Section 3 (a) of the said Act, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for School Education can be accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the lapses or irregularities are pointed out against Mr A.Venku Reddy as a correspondent, have been proved therefore, for the lapses, if any, committed by the Manager, the management cannot be suspended. No doubt in the impugned proceedings certain allegations and complaints against the Manager i.e. correspondent are proved. If the show cause notice is based upon those allegations alone, then certainly the case falls under Section 24 (3) (b) of the Act. But, a further reading of the show cause notice would also clearly indicate that the management allowed the correspondent beyond three years and therefore, the management was called upon to give an explanation. So, the lapses or irregularities, if any, as culled out from the impugned notice is that continuation of A.Venku Reddy beyond three years as Correspondent against whom certain allegations or complaints are received, the case squarely falls under Sub Section 3 (a) of Section 24 of the Act. Therefore, the Director of School Education is the competent authority to give show cause notice and an opportunity may be given to make representation for the reasons to be recorded in writing. So, it is for the management to give explanation to the show cause notice. Since the order under challenge is completely in consonance with Section 24(3) of the Act, it cannot be said to be illegal and arbitrary. Several contentions, such as, the Regional Joint Director had not conducted any enquiry and no charge sheet has been issued against the ex-correspondent are raised, all these matters are required to be decided by the competent authority i.e. the Regional Joint Director of School Education, in accordance with law. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference of this Court. Both the writ petitions are devoid of merits and the same are accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ 11-07-2005 kvrm To 1. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt. of A.P., at Hyderabad. 2. The District Educational Officer, Nellore. 3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur. 4. 2 CCs to G.P. for School Education, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5. 2 CD copies.