IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19062 of 2004 Between: K.A.M.C. Aided Elementary School, Gudipatipalli, rep. by its Correspondent, (now kept under Suspension) Sri K. Issac, S/o. Gudipatipalli, Veligendla Mandal, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Mandal Education Officer, Veligandla, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam 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 will be pleased to Issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the proceed in Rc.No.352/B1-3/2004, dt. 28.9.2004 of the 1st respondent in suspending the Management of K.A.M.C. Aided Elementary School, Gudipatipalli, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District and appointing the 3rd respondent as a Special officer to look after the affairs of the K.A.M.C. Aided Elementary School as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the principles of natural Justice and the statute and consequently to set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.ANANDA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER: It is not in dispute that the first respondent-Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, is the competent authority to take action under Section 24(3)(a) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act (for short “the Act”) read with G.O.Ms.No.147, dated 21-07-1990. Against the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section 89(b) of the Act or revision under Section 90 of the Act before the Government. In view of the fact that the petitioner is having effective alternative remedies against the impugned order, I see no grounds to entertain the present writ petition. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to avail such of the remedies as may be available to him in law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 14th OCTOBER, 2004. Kvni To 1 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The District Educational Officer, Prakasam District at Ongole. 3 The Mandal Education Officer, Veligandla, Veligandla Mandal, Prakasam District. 4 Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Education, A.P.High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT) 5 Two CD copies.