IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 7704 of 2008 Between: D.V. Swamy Aided U.P. School, D.No. 19-7-61, Mantripragada Street, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Rep. by its Manager and Corresponden U. Rama Krishna Rao. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Regional Joint Director, School Education, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 4 The District Educational officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 5 U. Sarojini, W/o. U. Ramakrishna Rao, D.No. 2-86, Revenue Colony, Public Lavatories, Cheedigak, Kakinada Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. 6 The Head Mistress, P.S. Municipal Girls High School, Salipeta, Kakinada, East Godavari 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 will be pleased to issue Writ or Order or direction, more particularly Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and to declare the action of the 4th respondent without following the due procedure, without repatriate the 5th respondent to her parent school and paying salary to the 5th respondent by directly by the 4th respondent and issuing proceedings Rc.No. 8-B3/06 dated 28/3/2006 are illegal, arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dt. 6-2-2007 and to set aside the 4th respondent proceedings Rc.No. 8-B3/06, dated 28/3/2006 and consequently to direct the respondent to repatriate the 5th respondent to her parent school by canceling deputation. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.P.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : O R D E R: The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, the 4th respondent herein, authorizing direct payment of salary to the 5th respondent. The petitioner is an Aided Primary School at Kakinada. Its correspondent is one Sri U. Ramakrishna Rao. His wife, the 5th respondent, was sent on deputation to P.S. Municipal Girls High School, the 6th respondent, in August 2007. However, the salary of the 5th respondent was not being paid to her, obviously on account of the non-submission of salary bills by the petitioner. The 5th respondent pursued the matter with the concerned authorities and ultimately the impugned order came to be passed. Petitioner raised an objection to the very deputation of teachers from Aided school to other institutions, by placing reliance upon an order dated 6.2.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education. It is somewhat strange that the correspondent of the petitioner institution did not raise any objection of the deputation of a teacher from the school, that too his wife, the 5th respondent. His grievance is only about the permission accorded by the 4th respondent, for direct payment of salary to 5th respondent. Obviously, the correspondent of the institution is trying to settle his personal scores with his wife. It is not demonstrated as to how the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, particularly when he did not choose to assail the order of deputation of the 5th respondent, to 6th respondent institution. This court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 10th April 2008 PAN