THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2091 of 2004 DATE: 10.02.2010 Between: The Bhaskara Elementary School …Petitioner and The Project Officer, ITDA, East Godavari and others …Respondents COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER : SMT. N(P).ANJANA DEVI COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2091 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition was originally filed for a mandamus to set aside proceedings, dated 02.11.2003, whereby a new Mandal Praja Parishad Elementary School (for short ‘new school’) was established, and proceedings, dated 20.01.2004, vide which, Sri G.Anand Kumar, Secondary Grade Teacher was transferred from the petitioner school to the Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School, Veerabhadrapuram, on deputation. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to fill the two existing aided posts in it’s school by respondents 2 and 3. With the permission of this Court, the petitioner amended the writ petition wherein it has sought for a declaration that the inaction of respondents 2 and 3 in approving the correspondentship of Sri Reverend. G.John Moses as illegal. It has also sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to approve the correspondentship of the said person. I have heard Smt. N(P).Anjana Devi Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education for respondents 2 and 3. No one appeared for respondent No.1. The petitioner school was established in 1937 in Papampeta Village, Addateegala Mandal, East Godavari District, a notified scheduled area. It claimed that it is an aided school. On the ground that the school is not functioning properly and the villagers made a request for opening a new school, respondent No.1 issued proceedings, dated 02.11.2003, wherein certain directions have been given. They include opening of new school and directions to respondent No.3 to take further action on the non-functioning of the petitioner school and utilization of the teacher working in the petitioner school and respondent No.2 to hand over the records pertaining to the petitioner school to the new school. Respondent No.3 filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is inter alia averred that the Government has sanctioned two grant-in-aid Secondary Grade Teacher posts to the petitioner school and the grant has expired on 02.06.2003; that the Mandal Educational Officer submitted proposals for approval of correspondentship in favour of Sri Rev. G.John Moses in November, 2003 and that on verification of the proposals, it is noticed that the Mandal Educational Officer has not obtained No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar and submitted it along with proposals. It is further averred that the Mandal Educational Officer has been addressed a letter to submit the No Objection Certificate for being forwarded to the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who is the competent authority for approval of correspondentship and that the petitioner has not submitted the required documents so far. It is further averred that Smt. G.Mary Suvarna Vani has represented to respondent No.3 that she is the daughter of demised correspondent of the petitioner school and that she is the shareholder of the entire property including the school and has accordingly raised an objection not to approve the request of her brother to approve his correspondentship. It is also averred that as the petitioner school was not functioning properly and the villagers have decided not to send their children to it, a new school was opened by the Mandal Parishad on 05.11.2003 and that the teacher who was working in the petitioner school was deputed to Mandal Parishad Upper Primary School, Veerabhadrapuram, of the same Mandal. In the reply affidavit, it is inter alia stated that the sister of the proposed correspondent addressed a letter to respondent No.3 on 26.7.2004 that she is withdrawing the objections raised against her brother. Though a copy of the said letter along with postal acknowledgment evidencing receipt by respondent No.3 is stated to have been filed along with the reply affidavit, no such documents are filed. The petitioner has also denied the allegation that the school is not functioning by asserting that there are still 56 students studying in the school. Along with the amendment petition, the petitioner filed extract of attendance register, proceedings, dated 05.10.2007 issued by respondent No.1 and proceedings, dated 19.04.2008 issued by respondent No.3. The facts narrated above reveal that the petitioner has three-fold grievance, namely, 1) establishment of a new school in the Village, where the petitioner school is situated; 2) sending the only teacher, namely, G.Anand Kumar working in the petitioner school on deputation, and 3) non-approval of correspondentship of Sri Reverend. G.John Moses to the petitioner school. With regard to the first grievance of the petitioner, on the basis of the representations made by the Villagers and the report submitted by the subordinate officials, respondent No.1 had taken a decision to open a new school. No provision of law has been brought to the notice of this Court by the petitioner that respondent No.1 has no legal authority to establish a new school in the Village in which the petitioner school is in existence. The petitioner therefore, does not have any legally enforceable right to prevent functioning of a new school. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this regard. As regards the second grievance of the petitioner, a perusal of proceedings, dated 05.10.2007 shows that respondent No.1 appeared to have caused an enquiry held and on the basis of the report submitted by the Deputy Tribal Welfare Officer, Rampachodavaram, he directed continuation of the petitioner school. Respondent No.1 also directed respondent No.2 to submit his explanation for misleading the higher authorities leading to stoppage of Mid-day Meals and supply of N.T. Books to the petitioner school without obtaining prior permission of the higher authorities and instructed him to restore supply of the same. Respondent No.1 cancelled the deputation of Sri G.Anand Kumar, who was working in the petitioner school, to an Upper Primary School at Veerabhadrapuram, and directed the said teacher to join in the petitioner school immediately. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said Anand Kumar filed a writ petition in this Court and obtained interim order, on the strength of which, he is not joining the petitioner school. In my opinion, with the issuance of the above-mentioned proceedings by respondent No.1, the grievance of the petitioner regarding deputation of it’s teacher stands redressed. It is open to the petitioner to contest the writ petition, if any, filed by the said Anand Kumar and seek vacation of the order. It is not possible for this Court to accept the request of the petitioner to direct the respondents to post another teacher in place of G.Anand Kumar because, that amounts to interference in the administration of educational schools by the competent authority. In regard to the third grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner filed proceedings, dated 19.04.2008, wherein respondent No.3 informed Sri Rev. G.John Moses that if he withdraws the present writ petition, namely, W.P.No.2091 of 2004, his request will be processed for approval of correspondentship. This stand of respondent No.3 is rather unusual. No order has been passed in this writ petition preventing respondent No.3 from processing the file pertaining to correspondentship and the competent authority is not refrained by any order of this Court from approving the correspondentship. Respondent No.3 therefore, was not justified in demanding withdrawal of the writ petition as a pre-condition for processing the file for approval of correspondentship. Such attitude on the part of the bureaucratic apparatus is highly reprehensible. It is the obligation of the competent authorities including respondent No.3 to act with reasonable dispatch on the request made for appointment of correspondent of a school. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.3 to process the application of Sri Rev. G.John Moses for approval of his correspondentship for the petitioner school immediately. The competent authority is directed to take a final decision on the application of Sri Rev. G.John Moses, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No.3 shall ensure that proceedings, dated 05.10.2007 issued by respondent No.1 are enforced in its letter and spirit. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 10th FEBRUARY, 2010. kvni