IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8379 of 2004 Between: Krushi Vidya Niketan High School, Allagadda, Kurnool District Correspondent S. Jeelan Basha, 51 years Allagadda, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt of A.P., repa. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat Hyd. 2 The Commissioner and Director of School Education Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director of School Education Cudapah. 4 The District Educational Officer, Kurnool District. .....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 issued a writ, order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent 1 and 2 herein not admitting the post of craft teacher of the petitioner school to the grant in aid by passing the rejection order in Memo No. 1414/Ps2/2004-1 dated 19.2.2004 has illegal arbitrary and contrary to law. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. K.V.N.BHUPAL Counsel for the Respondents.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Krushi Vidya Niketan High School, Allagadda, represented by its Correspondent S.Jeelan Basha assailing the action of the Secretary, School Education Department, Hyderabad-1st respondent and the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Hyderabad-2nd respondent in not admitting the post of Craft Teacher in the school to grant-in-aid. In a way, the petitioner school questioned the validity and legality of the Memo No.14114/Ps2/2004-1, dated 19.02.2004 issued by the 1st respondent. 2. The petitioner school was established on 18.07.1995 as a primary school and got recognition on 12.12.1976 and the school was admitted to grant-in-aid on 12.06.1981. Subsequently, the school was upgraded to upper primary school in the year 1982 and thereafter, it was further upgraded to High School in the year 1992. The District Educational Officer, Kurnool, vide his proceedings Rc.No.11338/B3/93, dated 23.05.1994, bifurcated the petitioner School into Class I to V and VI to X and granted renewal of recognition to the High School upto the academic year 2004-2005 vide D.Dis No.832/B2/2001, dated 16.02.2001. The post of Craft Teacher has been in existence in the petitioner school since the year 1982. The petitioner School made a representation to admit the post of Craft Teacher to grant-in-aid. Finding no action on the part of the respondents on the representation dated 06.05.1994, the petitioner School filed W.P.No.21365 of 1994 seeking a direction to the respondents to admit the post of Craft Teacher to grant- in-aid and to release necessary funds with immediate effect. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 03.01.2003. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.01.2003 reads as hereunder: “It is seen from the record that the Deputy Educational Officer has submitted his report as long back as on 17.07.1994 recommending the post to grant-in-aid. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far no decision is taken on the representation made by them and on the report submitted by the Deputy Educational Officer and disposed of their representation admitting Craft Teacher post to grant-in-aid. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to consider the representation of the petitioner-school dated 06.05.1994 in the light of the recommendations made by the Deputy Educational Officer in accordance with law if that post is still in existence in the petitioner-school and if it is otherwise eligible to be admitted to Grant-in-aid. With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the Government issued Memo No.1414/PS-2/2004-1, dated 19.02.2004 rejected the proposal of the petitioner-school. Based on the said Memo, the Commissioner and Direction of School Education, Hyderabad-2nd respondent proceeded to issue proceedings dated 18.03.2004 rejecting the request of the petitioner School to admit the post of Craft Teacher to grant-in-aid. The relevant portion of the proceedings dated 18.03.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent reads as follows: “In view of the directions of the Hon’ble High Court dated 3-1-2003 the proposals of the District Educational Officer, Kurnool was placed before the High Level Committee on 20-12-2003 and the High Level Committee has observed that the Craft post is not eligible for admission into Grant- in-Aid as per Act 22/88 as the High School classes were opened after 1-9-1985 and further observed that Upper Primary Classes are not eligible for the craft post and the same was reported to Government to issue orders in the matter. Accordingly Government in their orders in the reference 4th cited has rejected the proposals for admission of craft teacher post in respect of Krishi Vidyaniketan (aided) High School, Allagadda, Kurnool District into Grant-in-Aid as per the provisions of Act 22/88. In view of the above, the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Cuddapah / District Educational Officer, Kurnool is requested to inform the orders of the Government to the petitioner’s school on behalf of the respondents and send compliance. This has the approval of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.” The petitioner School filed this writ petition assailing Memo No.1414/PS-2/2004-1, dated 19.02.2004, issued by the 1st respondent. It is the case of the petitioner School that the District Educational Officer, Kurnool recommended for admission of the post of Craft Teacher to grant-in-aid and therefore, the memo issued by the Government contrary to the recommendations and the same is not legal and proper. 3. The respondents filed counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter- affidavit that as per Section 39(1)(b) of the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) Act, 1988, no private educational institution, which has been established after the 1st September, 1985, shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. The petitioner-School was established during the academic year 1991-92 and therefore, it is not eligible to grant-in-aid. Para.4 of the counter-affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus: “4. In reply to the averments made at paras.(4) to (7) of the petitioner’s affidavit: It is submitted that the petitioners is management was permitted to up grade the then upper primary school into high school during the year 1991-92, without aid subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed for granting of permission / recognition of schools as per Rules of A.P. Edn. Institutions (establishment, recognition, administration and control of schools) Rules, 1988 issued in G.O.Ms.No.524 Edn. (Rules), dt.20.12.1988. According to these rules the management seeking for permission to open the schools and up grade of existing schools shall provide all the conditions such as providing of sanitary facilities. Furniture, appointment of qualified staff, library and etc it is bounded duty of the management to provide qualified staff to the unaided classes from their own funds. Hence, the contention of the petitioner stating that it is the bound of the second respondent i.e. Commissioner and Director of School Education to sanction various categories of posts is not correct. According to the instructions issued in Procds. Rc.No.787/D1-2/92, dt.24.6.1992 of the DSE, A.P., Hyderabad, the management should submit the proposals to the Director through the District Educational Officer and Regional Joint Director of School Education, concerned for creation of Special category post and non teaching posts (unaided) post. But the petitioner’s management has not submitted proposals for creation of Un-aided craft teacher post. The contention of the petitioner stating that the craft teacher post in his school has been existing with effect from 1982 is not correct. In this connection, it is humbly submitted that the petitioner’s was not permitted to create said post and the said craft teacher post is not required to the then upper primary school and the official respondent are not responsible for his actions and making irregular appointments, at his institution. It is also submitted that the petitioner’s here in approached this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P.No.21365/1994, seeking directions to the respondents herein to admit the post of craft teacher of the petitioner school to the grant in aid and to release necessary funds. The Hon’ble court in its orders dt.3-1-2003, disposed the said writ petition, directing the respondents to ‘consider the representation of the petitioner school dt.6-5-1994 in the light of the recommendations made by the Deputy Educational Officer in accordance with law, if that post is still in existence in the petitioner school and if it is otherwise eligible to be admitted to grant in aid.” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner School has been in existence since the year 1976 and therefore, the proceedings issued by the Government rejecting the proposal for admission of Craft Teacher in to grant-in-aid is contrary to the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-In-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988, (for short, ‘the Act’). In elaborating his arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner School submits that the post of Craft Teacher has been approved by the Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad under proceedings in Rc.No.59/D1-2/96, dated 16.05.1996 and in which cases the action of the respondents in not admitting the said post to grant-in-aid cannot be sustained. 6. Learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents submits that the Craft Teacher is not at all essential for Upper Primary Classes and therefore, the question of admitting the said post to grant-in-aid does not arise. Learned Government Pleader would further contend that the petitioner school commenced the classes VI to X on temporary recognition with effect from 2001-2001 to 2004-2005 as per proceedings D.Dis.No.832/B2/2001, dated 16.02.2001 of the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Cuddapah and therefore, the action of the Government in rejecting the proposal for admission of craft teacher post to the grant-in-aid is in accordance with the Act. 7. Indisputably, the petitioner school initially started as primary school and subsequently, upgraded as upper primary school and thereafter, as high school. More precisely, the petitioner school started as primary school with effect from 12.12.1976 and thereafter upgraded as upper primary school by opening 6th class during 1982-83 and high school from 23.05.1994. 8. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act deal with the regulation of grant-in-aid to private education institutions, additional sections and posts and they read as hereunder: Sec.3. Regulation of grant-in-aid to private educational institutions – (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in G.O.Ms.No.238, Education (SSE) Department, dated the 27th May, 1986 and G.O.Ms.No.42, Education (CE) Department, dated the 19th September, 1985, -- (a) no private educational institution other than a college established after the 1st April, 1977 and existing on the 1st September, 1985 and no private college established after the 1st April, 1977 and existing on the 1st March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid (unless the Committee concerned constituted in G.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department, dated t5he 24th February, 1988 as modified in G.O.Rt.No.124 Education (SSE-I) Department, dated the 27th January, 1989 and the Government Memo. No.245/SSE-I/889-1, Education Department, dated the 9th February, 1989 recommends that it may be admitted to grant-in-aid. (b) No private educational institution other than a College which has been established after the 1st September, 1985 and no private college which has been established after the 1st March, 1985 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid. (2) A private educational institution referred to in clause (a) of sub- section (1) in favour of which the Committee recommends the release of grant- in-aid shall be entitled to such grant only from the date it satisfies all the conditions for admission to grant-in-aid specified in the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and the Rules made thereunder, the grants-in-aid Code and the orders and other instructions issued by the Government from time to time in this behalf. Sec.4. Release of grant-in-aid in respect of certain additional sections and posts:-- Notwithstanding anything contained in G.O.Ms.No.344, Education (SSE) Department, dated the 22nd July, 1985, no school admitted to grant-in-aid prior to the 1st April, 1977 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in- aid with respect to any additional sections opened or posts created after the 1st April, 1977 (unless the Committee concerned constituted inG.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department, dated the 24th February, 1988 as modified in G.O.Rt.No.124,Education (SSE-I) Department, dated the 27th January, 1989 and the Government Memo.No.245/SSE-I/89-1, Education Department, dated the 9th February, 1989 recommends the release of Grant-in-aid in respect of such additional sections and posts.” 9. Indisputably, the petitioner school has to claim for admission of craft teacher post to grant-in-ad under Section 4 of the Act. A plain reading of the Section 4 of the Act indicate that no school admitted to grant-in-aid prior to the 1st April, 1977 shall be entitled to receive any grant-in-aid with respect to any additional sections opened or posts created after the 1st April, 1977 unless the Committee concerned constituted in G.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department, dated 24th February, 1988 as modified in G.O.Rt.No.124 Education (SSE-I) Department, dated 27th January, 1989 and the Government Memo.No.245/SSE-I/89-1, Education Department, dated 9th February, 1989 recommends the release of grant-in-aid in respect of such additional sections and posts. In the proceedings Rc.No.787/D1-2/92 dated 24.06.1992 of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad, it is stated that the craft teacher post is not essential for upper primary and primary classes. Petitioner School is not in a position to convince the Court that the post of craft teacher in upper primary school is essential. Such is the situation, I do not see any flaw in the proceedings impugned in the writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:02nd July, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}