THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6767 of 2001 Dated: 28.7.2010 Between: A. Brijitta Obed Raj ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Government of A.P., rep., by Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6767 of 2001 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) This writ petition is filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to Memo No.SP-3953/CE.II.2/2000, dated 14.10.2000 and Rc.No.1187/Admn.IV-3/2000, dated 2.9.2000 on the file of respondents 1 and 2 herein and quash the same with consequential directions to respondents 1 and 2 to admit the post of Lecturer in Mathematics in the 3rd respondent-college to grant-in-aid from the date when it became eligible as per Rules and pass such other orders. The case of the petitioner reads as follows: The petitioner is working as a Lecturer in Mathematics in the 3rd respondent-college. She was initially appointed on 20.8.1987 as lecturer in Mathematics on consolidated pay in the 3rd respondent- college and later, she was selected as lecturer in Mathematics on regular scale of pay by a duly constituted selection committee in accordance with the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.No.119 & G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE1-2) Department, dated 22.3.1991 and 10.1.1992. On 5.7.2000, she made a representation to the 3rd respondent to admit the post of Lecturer in Mathematics in the 3rd respondent-college to Grant-in-aid. On that, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings stating that her request for admitting the post of Lecturer in Mathematics to Grant-in-aid is not feasible of compliance and it is rejected. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that as per section 3 (1)(a) of the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988 (for short, the “Act”), no educational institution other than a college established after 1st April, 1977 and existing as on 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 constituted in G.O.Rt.No.220 Education (SSE-I) Department, dated 24.2.1988, recommends that it may be admitted to grant-in-aid. The 3rd respondent was established in the year 1982 with the permission granted by the State Government and it was in existence as on 1st March, 1985. Unless the committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.220, dated 24.2.1988 recommends, a private college will not be eligible to grant-in-aid. In the instant case, the matter was not at all referred to the said Committee for its examination and recommendations. Without referring the matter to the said committee, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot reject the request for admitting to grant-in-aid the post of Lecturer in mathematics in the 3rd respondent-college. The 3rd respondent is bound to refer the matter to the Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No.220, Education, dated 24.2.1998 for its examination and recommendations. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. Perused the material available on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Section 3(1)(a) of the A.P. Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-Aid (Regulation) Act, 1988, it is mandatory that the matter has to be referred to the High Level Committee, but it was not done in the instant case and therefore, the proceedings impugned herein are liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General opposed the said contention. It is stated by the respondents in the additional counter filed by them that the D.B.P.M College for Women, Secunderabad was started during the academic year 1982-83 with B.A and B.Com., courses with one section in each course. There were two combinations viz., (i) Economics, Political Science and Public Administration and (ii) Economics, Political Science and Modern Language (Eng) in B.A., from the year 1982-83. The Government in G.O.Ms.No:173, Education, dated 4.5.1991 admitted the D.B.P.M College for women, Secunderabad to Grant in aid. But, at the time of admission of the college into Grant in aid only one combination viz., Economics, Political science and Public Administration was admitted into aid and the second combination in Economics, Political Science and Modern Language (English) was inadvertently not included in the list of courses to be admitted and therefore, they were not admitted to grant in aid though they are eligible to be admitted. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that discrimination is being showed among the similarly situated persons is not correct. The petitioner is working in M.P.C group which was started from 1.8.1985 i.e., after the cut off date fixed by the Act 22 of 1988 and therefore, when the course itself is not admitted to Grant in aid, the petitioner is not entitled to seek for any direction to admit her to grant in aid. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has filed an affidavit contending that the course with relevant combinations has already come into existence with the permission/affiliation granted by the A.P Government and Osmania University respectively and the 3rd respondent has also made necessary arrangements like setting up of laboratories and completed the process of selection of staff for the B.Sc., course in the year 1984 itself. All these facts establish the very existence of the said course. The provisions of the Education Act 22/1988 clearly stipulates as to the starting of the College but not the beginning of the classes for consideration as to the existence of the course. The 3rd respondent College (D.B.P.M. College for women) was accorded permission including B.Sc. course with one section and the said fact is recorded at Sl.No:8 of G.O.Ms.No:770, Education, dated 4.9.1982. Apart from that, the 3rd respondent college was accorded affiliation by the Osmania University vide their letter No:4269/II/1081/82/Acadamic dated 8.11.1984 clearly mentioning the B.Sc., course with Mathematics combination i.e., on 8th November, 1984 itself with specific permission from the academic year 1984-85. After obtaining all the required affiliation/permission, the 3rd respondent advertised in the local daily on 10.9.1984 calling for the lecturers specially for Science section including the Lecturers for Mathematics subject. These documents clearly establish the fact that the course including Mathematics subject emerged and existed in 1984 itself. The provisions of section 3(1)(a) of the Act say that no private educational institution other than a college established after 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 constituted in G.O.Rt.No.220, Education (SSE-I) Department, dated 24.2.1988 recommends that it may be admitted to grant-in-aid. The fact remains undisputed is that the College in question was instituted after the year 1977 and admitted to grant in aid under G.O.Ms.No:173, Education, dated 4.5.1991 with certain combination of subjects viz., Economics, Political Science and Public Administration. The dispute is with regard to the starting of the M.P.C group after the cut off date as fixed by the provisions of the Act. However, in the light of the documents referred to by the petitioner and on the rival contentions as to the admission of the institution to grant in aid, the institution in question comes within the ambit of the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act. In such a case, under the provisions of section 3 (1) (a) of the Act, which is a mandatory one, the matter has to be referred to the Committee constituted under G.O.Rt.No:220, Education (SSE-I) Department dated 24.2.1988 so as to receive any grant in aid. Now, coming to the facts of the case on hand, there is no dispute that the petitioner is working as Lecturer in Mathematics in the 3rd respondent-college and she was initially appointed on 20.8.1987 as lecturer in Mathematics on consolidated pay in the 3rd respondent- college and later, she was selected as lecturer in Mathematics on regular scale of pay by a duly constituted selection committee in accordance with the procedure laid down under G.O.Ms.No.119 & G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE1-2) Department, dated 22.3.1991 and 10.1.1992. It is also not in dispute that on 5.7.2000, she made a representation to the 3rd respondent to admit the post of Lecturer in Mathematics in the 3rd respondent-college to Grant-in-aid and the same was rejected under the impugned proceedings without referring the matter to the Committee in question. In this background of the matter, it can be inferred that the action of the authorities amounts to non- compliance of the provisions of section 3(1) (a) of the Act, which is a mandatory one. In this view of the matter, we have no hesitation to hold that the order impugned herein suffers from illegality and irregularity and thereby, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned while remanding the matter to the 2nd respondent for the purpose of referring the subject matter to the high level committee to pass orders in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to the costs. __________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ________________________ Justice B. Chandra Kumar Date: 28th July, 2010 nn. THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 6767 of 2001 (Order delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) 28/07/2010