IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT APPEAL Nos. 822 of 2001, 889 of 2001, 229 of 2003 and WRIT PETITION NO : 22887 of 2003 WRIT APPEAL NO : 822 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2001 in WP NO : 26114 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Secretary and Correspondent, St.Mark NTR College of Education, Prakash nagar Narsaraopet - 522 601 Guntur Dist ..... APPELLANT AND 1.St.Mark NTR GMKN & MR.B.Ed.College, Narsaraopet, Guntur District, A College established and administered by St.Anthony Educational Society, rep. by its Correspondent G.V.Rami Reddy, S/o. Rami Reddy 2.Government of A.P Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education (SE.TRG.I) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3.Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4.Regional Director National Council for Teacher Education 125, Infantry Road, Opp:Medinova Diagnostic Centre, Bangalore - 560 001 5.Nagarjuna University Rep.by its Registrar, Guntur. 6.The Convenor, EdCET 2000 Kakatiya University, Warangal. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO : 889 of 2001 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2001 in WP NO : 7789 OF 2000 on the file of the High Court.) Between: St.Anthony Educational Society rep. by its Secretary cum Correspondent, B.Koteswara Rao ..... APPELLANT AND 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education (TRG-I) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 2.Commissioner and Director of School Education, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT APPEAL NO : 229 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 12/03/2001 in WP NO : 7906 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: St.Mark NTR GMKN & MR.B.Ed., College Narsaraopet, Guntur District, a College established and administered by St. Anthony Educational Society, rep. by its Correspondent - G.V.Rami Reddy S/o.Rami Reddy, Aged about 48 yrs, R/o.Narsaraopet, Guntur District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1.Government of Andhra Pradesh rep.by its Secretary Education (Training-I) Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2.The Commissioner and Director of School Education AP, Hyderabad 3.St.Anthony's Educational Society rep.by its Secretary B.Koteswarlu, S/o.Venkateswarlu .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: MR.NUTY RAM MOHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I WRIT PETITION NO : 22887 of 2003 Between: G.V. Rami Reddy S/o. Rami Reddy, aged 49 years, Correspondent, St. Mark NTR G.M.K.N. & M.R.B.Ed. College Narasaraopet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1.The Commissioner & Director of School Education Government of Andhra Pradesh at Nampally, Hyderabad 2.The Branch Manager, State Bank of India Narasaraopet Branch, Guntur District. 3.Nagothu Chennaiah S/o. Jojaiah, aged about 45 years, R/o Ravipadu Village Narasaraopet mandal, Guntur 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 may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs, order or direction, declaring the proceedings dated 23.7.2003 in RC.No.827/N2.2/2001 on the file of the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction; award costs. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for School Education MRS.P.BALA RANI The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (per G. Bikshapathy J) 1. All the Writ Petitions and Writ Appeals can be disposed of by a common Order as they are veering round for capturing the management of St. Anthony’s Educational Society, Narsaraopet. There is any amount of litigation undertaken by individual parties in the guise of championing the cause of the Society more predominantly two persons namely by name B. Koteshwar Rao and G.V. Rami Reddy and they have been putting relentless fighting to take over the management of the B.Ed. College. But, however, before proceeding to the actual matrix, the necessary facts relevant for appreciating and understanding the situation is necessary, which is traced out in the paras infra. 2. The St. Anthony’s Educational Society, Narsaraopet came into existence in the year 1988. Initially, the president of the Society was one G. Jayanna Chowdary. It had submitted an application on 29.4.1988 to the State Government for permission to start B.Ed. college at Narsaraopet from the academic year 1988-89. However, the said request was rejected by the Government. Thereupon, a further request was made by the Society and that request to commence the institute with effect from 18.9.1990. As there was no response, the Society filed W.P.No. 14838 of 1989 seeking directions to dispose of the application by the Government for establishing the B.Ed. college. This Court by an Order dated: 26.10.1989 disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the State Government to take a decision in accordance with the law keeping in view the report submitted by the concerned authorities. However, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 636, dated: 17.4.1990 rejecting the permission. Thereafter, the Society filed a Contempt Case which was dismissed and again the Society filed W.P.No. 12558 of 1990 questioning the Order of rejection in G.O.Rt.No. 636. The said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 27.11.1990 and directions were issued to the State Government to grant permission to establish the B.Ed. college from the academic year 1990-91. However, the State Government filed Writ Appeal No.14 of 1991, and the Order was modified directing the Government to grant hearing to the Society and dispose of the application for the academic year 1991-92. Accordingly, for the second time, the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 532 rejecting the same against which another Writ Petition was fled in W.P.No. 17315 of 1991. This Court set aside the Order of the Government in G.O.Rt.No. 532 by judgment dated: 24.4.1992 and directed the State Government to reconsider the matter. After giving the opportunity, again the State Government passed Orders in G.O.Rt.No. 1164, dated: 24.6.1992 rejecting the application. Thereupon, the Society filed Writ Petition No. 8113 of 1992 which was allowed by this Court on 29.2.1992. Again the Government issued G.O.Rt.No. 198, dated: 8.2.1993. Questioning the same, the Society filed W.P.No. 3727 of 1993 and 3728 of 1993.Both the Writ Petitions were dismissed by the Division Bench on 18.2.1994. Thereupon, the Society filed SLP No. 8019-29 of 1994 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme C ourt by an Order dated: 2.8.1995 granted Leave and directed the State Government to consider application made by the Society for starting the Colleges of Educational in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the unamended A.P. Education Act, 1982 without going into policy decision on the basis of which the permission was granted earlier and refused and directed consideration of the application in terms of the Orders passed in earlier S.L.Ps. Direction was also given for consideration of the application on the basis of the conditions as obtained on 24.9.1988 and to pass reasoned Order on or before 1.12.1995 after hearing the Society. Accordingly, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 434, dated: 31.11.1995 rejecting the application of the Society on the ground that there was no need for establishment of College. Thereafter, the Society filed Contempt Case No. 194, 195 of 1996 before the Supreme Court. But, however, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 240, dated: 8.11.1996 permitting the Society to establish the College of education subject to certain conditions. Thus, the application filed in 1988 was considered favourably and Orders were passed in 1998. 3. Then coming to the question of management of the Society G. Jayanna Chowdary was the President, who has been continuing the litigation right from the beginning till November, 1995, when the Government issued G.O.Ms.No. 434 rejecting the application of the Society. Subsequently, it appears that the litigation was continued by B.Koteswar Rao, who was alleged to have been representing the Appellant- Society. He started St. Mark NTR College of Education, Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet for the academic year 1996-97. On the other side, one G.V. Rami Reddy along with some others expelled candidates established a college by name St. Mark NTR GMKN & MR College of Education. Koteswar Rao filed O.S.NO. 229 of 1996 seeking permanent injunction, in which G.V. Rami Reddy and his group was arrayed as defendants. However, Mr. Rami Reddy and Mr. B. Koteswar Rao filed independent W.P.Nos. 19464, 14687, 21167 and 13450 of 1997 seeking affiliation and directions to Nagarjuna University to grant permanent affiliation to the respective colleges. All the Writ Petitions were disposed of by a common Order dated: 29.9.1997 directing the Director of School Education to appoint a Special Officer to take over the institution for the purpose of administration and management of B.Ed. College. At the same time, the District Munsif, Narsaraopet was directed to dispose of the O.S.NO. 229 of 1996 expeditiously and it was also made clear that as per the decision of the Civil Court, the College has to be transferred to the concerned group for management and administration. Against the said Order, the W.A.NO. 1172, 1250, 1314 and 1315 of 1997 were filed. The Writ Appeals were disposed of modifying the Order of the learned Single Judge to the extent of appointment of Special Officer and confirmed the remaining part of the relief. The Division Bench directed Rami Reddy to administer the Society pending result of the suit. However, the District Munsif dismissed the suit by a judgment and decree dated: 23.5.1998 recording a finding of the Managing Committee of the Society was the only Committee as existed as on 8.11.1995 and at the relevant time B. Koteswar Rao was the Secretary of the Society and the resolution removing the then President G. Jayanna Chowdary held to be not valid. Against the said judgment, A.S.No. 44 of 1998 was filed and Rami Reddy group also filed Cross appeals. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 2.4.1999 and found that the Appellant Koteswar Rao was properly elected as Secretary of the Society on 8.11.1995. However, the proceedings subsequent to 24.11.1995 was held to be illegal and void. By virtue of this, Rami Reddy group found to be no more connected with the management. While so, G.O.Ms.No. 356, dated: 26.9.1998 was issued by the Government withdrawing the permission granted to St. Mark NTR GMKN & MR College of Education represented by G.V. Rami Reddy after issuing show cause notice and the same was questioned by Rami Reddy in W.P.No. 7906 of 1999. Mr. Koteswar Rao also made a representation to the State Government stating all the facts. However, after inspection and verification of the record, the authorities recommended to the Government to grant permission to Koteswar Rao to run B.Ed. College under the supervision of the Society. Koteswar Rao filed W.P.No. 7789 of 2000 for direction to the Government to dispose of the representation dated: 17.11.1998 and 15.3.2000 and also grant benefits under G.O.Ms.No. 240, dated: 8.11.1996. Accordingly, the State Government has issued a G.O.Ms.No. 171, dated: 16.12.2000 permitting St. Mark NTR College of Education, Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet represented by Koteswar Rao to run St. Mark NTR College of Education, Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet from the academic year 2000-01 subject to outcome of W.P.No. 7789 of 2000. Questioning the validity of the said G.O.Ms.No. 171, G.V. Rami Reddy of St. Mark NTR GMKN & MR College of Education filed W.P.No. 26114 of 2000. Both the Writ Petitions came to be considered by the learned Single Judge namely W.P.No. 7906 of 1999 filed by Rami Reddy questioning the G.O.Ms.No. 356, dated: 26.9.1998 withdrawing the permission and also W.P.No. 26114 of 2000 questioning the G.O.Ms.No. 171 permission granted to Koteswar Rao group. The learned Single Judge by an Order dated: 12.3.2001 allowed the W.P.No. 26114 of 2000 and dismissed the W.P.No. 7789 of 2000. Aggrieved by the said Order, Appellant Mr. Koteswar Rao filed W.A.NO. 822 of 2001 against the Orders passed in W.P.No. 26114 of 2000, W.A.NO. 899 of 2001 against the Orders passed in W.P.No. 7789 of 2000. Thus, the state of affairs of the Society are reflected in the aforesaid paragraphs. 4. Yet, again W.P.No. 22887 of 2003 was filed by G.V. Rami Reddy challenging the Orders of Commissioner and Director of School Education, dated: 23.7.2003in Rc.No. 827/N2-2/2001 releasing corpus fund in favour of 3rd respondent. . 5. Before going into the relief in the Writ Petition, it is necessary that the Writ Appeal should be disposed of which would govern the relief in Writ Petition. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. D.V. Sitarama Murthy in W.A.Nos. 822/01 and 889/01 vehemently submits that the respondent Rami Reddy has been making unsuccessful attempts at every point of time. Even though he was found to be no way connected with the affairs of the Society, he was neither elected President nor Office bearer of the Society, but, yet he started litigation at various levels on the basis of the interim Orders passed by this Court from time to time. But, even, otherwise also he submits that he has been conducting the affairs of the college in most irresponsible manner completely violating the directions of the Government issued from time to time with regard to the admission of B.Ed. students. He admitted the students without there being any valid permission and thereupon filed the Writ Petitions seeking to declare the illegal activities as contrary to law. This was considered by the learned Single Judge and the conduct of Rami Reddy was seriously commented upon. Thus, considering the nature of the litigation commenced by him, the learned Judge found that the withdrawal of permission granted to St. Mark NTR GMKN & MR College of Education college was illegal and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. 7. Coming to the question of challenge made to G.O.Ms.No. 171, the learned counsel Mr. Sita Ram Murthy submits that the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge are wholly illegal and untenable. He submits that the Koteswar Rao was found to be duly elected Secretary of the Society and even the appellate Court also observed this in Appeal No. 44 of 1998, but with regard to Rami Reddy, the Civil Court found that he was not at all connected with the Society. But, this aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. He submits that the very object of the Society is to establish the B.Ed. college and serve the needs of the people, more especially Christian minority students, who are migrating to other places to pursue higher education. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the tribunal ought not to have set aside the G.O.Ms.No. 171. He further submits that under the provisions of the A.P. Education Act that consequent on the National Council for Teachers Education Act (for brief “N.C.T.E. Act”), the State Government has no role to play and that no objection is also not required in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court. Under those circumstances, setting aside the G.O.Ms.No. 171 on the ground that the no objection certificate was issued by the Government is wholly unsustainable and therefore, the Order in Writ Petition setting aside the G.O.Ms.No. 171 is liable to be set aside and Writ Appeal has to be allowed. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. Nooty Ram Mohan Rao, appearing for the College represented by Rami Reddy submits that the Order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in asmuch as the college was run as per the conditions stipulated by the Government and therefore, the Order is liable to be set aside. With regard to the successful challenge made to G.O.Ms.No. 171, the learned counsel would submit that the Order of the learned Single Judge observing that no objection certificate was not obtained and therefore, granting permission is contrary to the Education Act cannot be said to be illegal and contrary to law and therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Writ Appeal No. 229 of 2003 filed by the college representing by Rami Reddy is liable to be allowed and the Writ Appeal No. 822 of 2001 and 889 of 2001 filed by Koteswar Rao are liable to be dismissed. 9. The learned Government Pleader submits that in view of the quarrel between the parties, the learned Single Judge has come to a correct conclusion that both the persons should not be allowed to run the Colleges and therefore, he submits that there are no merits in the writ appeals and they are liable to be dismissed. 10. With regard to the challenge made to G.O.Ms.No. 356, dated: 26.9.1998 wherein permission accorded to St. Mark NTR GMKN & MR College of Education was withdrawn, submissions made before the learned Single Judge were again pressed into service. We need not refer to them in detail. The learned Single Judge observing that the show cause notice dated: 31.3.1998 as well as in the show cause notice dated: 15.6.1996, there was no proposal to withdraw the permission granted to the Society observed that the show cause notice has to be construed only as a show cause notice for withdrawing the permission already granted in G.O.Ms.No. 240. In fact, the Appellant Rami Reddy was aware of the situation and he submitted th e reply to the show cause notice dated: 5.6.1998 on the premise that the permission was being sought to be intended to be withdrawn in pursuance of the said show cause notice and thus the learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the Appellant that proper notice was not given before passing the Order of withdrawl. We do not find any flaw in the said finding of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge further held that when the power to grant permission vests with the Government equally power to withdraw the permission is inherent in such authority. More over, the permission was granted to the Appellant Rami Reddy to establish college subject to fulfilment of the conditions in the said G.O.Ms.No. 240. One of the important condition which is required to be followed by the management of the institution was that they shall abide by the conditions imposed by the University from time to time with regard to the admission of the students into the institution. The institution committed any number of illegalities even the admissions were made without permission from the authorities or without allotment is made by the authorised source having admitted the Appellants tried to legalise its acts by approaching the Court at various stages. The contention that the State Government usurped the jurisdiction under the N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 is also not sustainable and what was granted by the State Government was permission and not the recognition and that to permission was granted by the N.C.T.E. only for a period of one academic year that is to say i.e. 1996-97 and for 1998-99 it was also found that the Appellant admitted the students into college for the academic year 1997-98 without allotment made by the Convenor, EDCET, 1997 while the admission of students to private institutions shall be on the basis of their ranking in the common entrance test. The Convenor is required to allot students according to ranking, but the Appellant- institution has given a go bye to the procedure on the premise that it is a minority institution and that it is entitled to admit the minority students to the college irrespective of the merit. On the other hand, when candidates were allotted by the Convenor for the academic year 1997-98, it refused to admit them. The same irregularity was also committed by the Appellant-institution in the admissions for the academic year 1996-97. Therefore, the learned Single Judge after finding that the Appellant-college run by Rami Reddy has committed irregularity right from the inception held that withdrawing the permission was quite legal and valid. The following is the extract of the judgment: “It is thus clear that the petitioner-college admitted the students into the college by its own even though it had no affiliation from the University. The petitioner college treated itself as a minority institution and on that basis admitted the so-called minority students into the institution directly without obtaining any minority status certificate. The conduct of the petitioner speaks for itself. Such conduct disentitles it from granting any relief. The decision of the Government in withdrawing the permission/recognition perfectly is in accordance with law. It does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Public interest is paramount consideration. The State Government rightly acted in the public interest. It is well settled that the Court discharging its functions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also a court of equity. Writs in the nature of Mandamus and Certiorari are issued to uphold the rule of law and prevent the miscarriage of justice. No person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be permitted to take advantage of the strategies and devices for getting relief from this Court.” 11. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, tried to convince this Court that the findings recorded are not sustainable in asmuch as, the learned Single Judge has proceeded with the predetermined view. We are unable to subscribe this contention. The narrations of the events borne out by the records speak volumes. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the Order passed by the learned Single Judge upholding the validity of G.O.Ms.No. 356. Therefore, we find no merits in the Writ Appeal and accordingly the Writ Appeal No. 229 of 2003 filed by G.V. Rami Reddy is dismissed. 12. Coming to the W.A.NO. 822 of 2001 filed against the Order passed in W.P.No. 26114 of 2000, as already noted, that the said Writ Appeal has been filed against the Orders of the learned Single Judge setting aside the G.O.Ms.No. 171, dated: 16.12.2002 in which the permission was granted to St. Mark NTR College of Education, Prakash Nagar, Narsaraopet represented by B.Koteswar Rao to run B.Ed. for the academic year 2000-2001 subject to certain conditions. This Court while issuing notice before admission in W.P.No. 7789 of 2000, merely directed the Government to pass the Orders on the application filed by the petitioner, but there was no positive directions to grant permission. The learned Single Judge observed that the Government acted as if it was bound to grant the permission to run B.Ed. college either by the group of G.V. Rami Reddy or B.Koteswar Rao. That finding has become purely academic in view of the fact that academic year was already over and it has to be considered whether the group lead by B.Koteswar Rao is entitled for any relief. The learned Single Judge while referring to G.O.Ms.No. 171, observed that the Government had passed the Orders on the premise that this Court has directed. But, in fact if G.O.Ms.No. 171 is read in its entirety, it is noticed that the Government has considered the matter on thebasis of rival clams and preferred to grant permission to B.Koteswar Rao rather than G.V. Rami Reddy. 13. Under Chapter-IV of National Council for Teachers Education Act, the method and manner of recognising the teacher education is stipulated. Section 14 and 15 are relevant which are extracted below: “SECTION 14 Recognition of institutions offering course or training in teacher education (1) Every institution offering or intending to offer a course or training in teacher education on or after the appointed day may, for grant of recognition under this Act, make art application to the Regional Committee concerned in such form and in such manner as may be determined by regulations; Provided that an institution offering a course or training in teacher education immediately before the appointed day, shall be entitled to continue such course or training for a period of six months, if it has made an application for recognition within the said period and until the disposal of the application by the Regional Committee. (2) The fee to be paid along with the application under sub-section (1) shall be