HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 11747, 11749, 11893, 11900, 11902, 11903 AND 11270 OF 2006 W.P.No. 11747 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Srinivasa High School, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents W.P.No. 11749 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Viswa Bharathi School, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents W.P.No. 11893 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Sanghamithra Grammer School, Chatrinaka, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents W.P.No. 11900 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Nalanda Public School, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents W.P.No. 11902 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Sri Chaitanya Model School, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents W.P.No. 11903 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Vignan Model High School, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents W.P.No. 11270 OF 2006 BETWEEN: Federation of Minorities Private Institution, Dabirpura, Hyderabad ………Petitioner And The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Hyderabad & others ………Respondents :: C O M M O N O R D E R :: Counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.11747, 11749, 11893, 11900, 11902 and 11903 of 2006: Shri S. Ramachandra Rao, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Srinivas Counsel for the petitioners in Shri Mohd. Abid Ali with W.P.No.1270 of 2006: Shri V. Rajagopal Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Shri C.V. Mohan Reddy, Advocate General with Shri A. Satya Prasad, Special Government Pleader Dated: .01.2007 Per G.S. SINGHVI, CJ In these petitions (except Writ Petition No.11270 of 2006), the petitioners have prayed for issue of mandamus to the respondents to dispose of the applications ﬁled by them for grant of permission in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the 1993 Rules) and to allow them to continue to function till the disposal of their applications. In Writ Petition No.11270 of 2006, the petitioners have prayed for issue of a direction to the respondents to relax the norms and simplify the procedure for recognizing the schools with a further direction not to close down the petitioner schools. The Facts: W.P.No.11747 OF 2006 – Srinivasa High School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others The petitioner school was established in the year 2003 in Jiyaguda, Hyderabad. Later on, it was renamed as Srinivasa Education Society and got registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001 (for short, ‘the 2001 Act’). After three years, the management of the petitioner school ﬁled application dated 15.05.2006 for grant of permission/recognition by relaxing the conditions speciﬁed in the 1993 Rules, but the same was not entertained apparently because of the restriction imposed by the High Court vide order dated 26.04.2006 passed in Taken Up Writ Petition No. 2058 of 2006 - D. Swapna Rao v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and others. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri D. Venkata Reddy, Correspondent of the school, it has been averred that the petitioner has complied with all the conditions and has sought relaxation in the matter of providing playground because vacant space is not available in the city of Hyderabad and peripheral areas, which could be used as playground for the students. Shri Venkat Reddy has further averred that majority of government and private recognized schools do not have playgrounds, but the competent authority arbitrarily refused permission/recognition to the petitioner only on the ground of non-availability of playground. He has alleged that in the garb of implementing the 1993 Rules and the order of the High Court, the respondents are depriving the rural, poor and needy children of their right to education, which is guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri Ch. Pullaiah, Regional Joint Director of School Education, Hyderabad, reference has been made to the conditions speciﬁed in the 1993 Rules (as amended vide G.O.Ms.No.41, dated 11.05.2006), which are required to be fulﬁlled by the management of the school as a condition for grant of permission/recognition and it has been averred that the petitioner’s application was not entertained because it has failed to comply with some of the conditions including the one relating to playground. Along with his aﬃdavit, Shri Ch. Pullaiah has annexed copy of inspection report submitted by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Golconda Zone, Hyderabad to District Educational Oﬃcer, Hyderabad District vide letter No. 951/388/GCZ/PTO/2006 dated 01.08.2006. W.P.No.11749 of 2006 – Viswa Bharathi School, Lal Darwaja, Hyderabad The petitioner school was established in 2005 at Lal Darwaja, Hyderabad. It has been registered under the 2001 Act as Viswa Bharathi Educational and Welfare Society. Soon after its establishment, the management of the school ﬁled an application for grant of recognition/permission under the 1993 Rules, but its application was not entertained apparently because of non-fulﬁllment of the conditions speciﬁed in the 1993 Rules, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.41 Edn., dated 11.05.2006. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri K. Rajender, Correspondent of the school, it has been averred that due to lack of availability of vacant land, it is highly diﬃcult for the management to provide playground. The deponent has then pleaded that the condition of having playground by the private schools should be declared as arbitrary and discriminatory because large numbers of private schools have been recognized without insisting on this facility. The remaining averments contained in the aﬃdavit of Shri K. Rajender are similar to those contained in the affidavit of Shri D. Venkat Reddy, Correspondent of Srinivasa High School. In the counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri S. Jagannath Reddy, District Educational Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, reliance has been placed on inspection report dated 19.07.2006 submitted by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad and it has been averred that recognition was not granted to the petitioner school because it does not satisfy the parameters laid down under the 1993 Rules. W.P.No.11893 of 2006 – Sanghamithra Grammer School, Chatrinaka, Hyderabad The petitioner school was established in 2003. It has been registered under the 2001 Act as Sri Lakshmi Devi Memorial Sanghamithra Educational Society. The application for recognition/permission made by the management of the school was not entertained by the competent authority apparently because of the restriction imposed by the High Court vide order dated 26.04.2006 passed in Taken Up Writ Petition No.2058 of 2006. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri P. Devender Reddy, Correspondent of the school and counter- aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri Ch. Pullaiah, Regional Joint Director of school Education, Hyderabad, are similar to those contained in Writ Petition No.11747 of 2006. Shri Pullaiah has relied on inspection report dated 12.07.2006 submitted by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad and averred that recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner because it does not fulfill the norms prescribed under the 1993 Rules. W.P.No.11900 of 2006 – Nalanda Public School v. Government of Andhra Pradesh The petitioner school was established in 1998. It has been registered under the 2001 Act as Nalanda Educational Society. The management of the school made an application in 2005 for grant of recognition, but the competent authority did not entertain the same in view of order dated 26.04.2006 passed by the High Court in Taken Up Writ Petition No.2058 of 2006. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri G. Panchajanyam, Correspondent of the school and counter- aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri S. Jagannath Reddy, District Educational Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, are similar to those contained in Writ Petition No.11747 of 2006. Shri Reddy has relied on inspection report dated 14.07.2006 submitted by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad and averred that recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner because it does not fulﬁll the conditions prescribed by the 1993 Rules. W.P.No.11902 of 2006 – Sri Chaitanya Model School, Saibaba Nagar, Uppuguda, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh The petitioner school was established in 2002. It has been registered as Chaitanya Educational Society. The management of the school ﬁled an application in 2005 for grant of recognition, but the competent authority refused to entertain the same by citing the restrictions imposed by the High Court. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri K. Rajasehkar, Correspondent of the school and counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri S. Jagannath Reddy, District Educational Oﬃcer, Hyderabad, are similar to those contained in Writ Petition No.11747 of 2006. Shri Reddy has relied on inspection report dated 19.07.2006 submitted by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad and averred that recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner because it does not fulﬁll the conditions prescribed by the 1993 Rules. W.P.No.11903 of 2006 – Vignan Model High School, Uppuguda, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh The petitioner school was established in 1998. It has been registered as Vignan Educational Society. The management of the school ﬁled an application in 2005 for grant of recognition, but the competent authority did not accept the same. The averments contained in the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri A. Pulla Reddy, Correspondent of the school and counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri S. Jagannath Reddy, District Educational Oﬃcer, Hyderabad are similar to those contained in Writ Petition No.11747 of 2006. Shri Reddy has relied on inspection report dated 14.07.2006 submitted by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad and averred that recognition cannot be granted to the petitioner because it does not fulﬁll the conditions laid down under the 1993 Rules. W.P.No.11270 of 2006 – Federation of Minorities Private Institutions, Dabirpura and 32 others, v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Petitioner No.1 is the Federation of Minorities Private Institutions. Petitioner Nos.2 to 33 are private unaided schools established in diﬀerent parts of the city of Hyderabad. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri Mohd. Abid Ali, Advocate and General Secretary of petitioner No.1 Federation, reference has been made to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the 1982 Act’) and amendments made therein by Act No.27 of 1987 and it has been averred that Section 20A of the Act is violative of the right guaranteed to the minority educational institutions under Article 30(1) of the Constitution. The deponent has also referred to press notes dated 10.05.2006, 19.05.2006 and 26.05.2006 issued by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to the eﬀect that the management of the private schools, which are being run without obtaining permission from the competent authority under Section 20 of the 1982 Act, are liable to be punished and averred that if the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are strictly enforced, hundreds of unaided schools will have to be closed down and this will adversely aﬀect the right to education guaranteed to the children belonging to minority community. Shri Mohd. Abid Ali has then referred to representation made to National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions, which was forwarded by Secretary of the Commission to Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh for taking necessary action in the matter on the basis of order passed by the Commission. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled by him, Shri S. Jagannath Reddy, District Educational Oﬃcer, Hyderabad has relied on order dated 26.04.2006 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.2058 of 2006 and averred that suﬃcient number of seats are available in various primary, upper primary and high schools in Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Nizamabad Districts. In paragraphs 10 to 24 of his aﬃdavit, Shri Reddy has given the teacher – pupil ratio in various primary, upper primary and high schools in the districts of Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy and Nizamabad and averred that suﬃcient number of vacant seats are available in these schools. This is evinced from the following extracts of the affidavit of Shri Jagannath Reddy: “I submit that, as per the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993, the teacher-pupil ratio should not exceed 1: 40. An analysis of the teacher-pupil ratio shows that in respect of High Schools the teacher-pupil ratio in Hyderabad is1: 27, while in Nizamabad 1:36 and in Ranga Reddy District 1:30. Thus, there are good number of seats which can be ﬁlled in High Schools in Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Districts and Nizamabad. Similarly, in respect of Upper Primary Schools the teacher-pupil ratio in Hyderabad is 1:28, while Nizamabad is 1:35, and in Ranga Reddy District 1:29. Thus a good number of seats can be ﬁlled up in the Upper Primary Schools also. The teacher ratio in respect of Primary Schools in Hyderabad is 1:40, in Nizamabadis1:36 and in Ranga Reddy District is 1:42. I submit that, the Hyderabad District consists of 16 Mandals, I am herewith furnishing statements showing the strength particulars of the Government run schools. I submit that as per the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993, the teacher pupil ratio should not exceed 1:40. In situations where the strength of a class exceeds 55, normally an additional section will be opened. I submit that, there are 159 Government run High Schools in Hyderabad District. A High School consists of classes 6th to 10th, i.e. ﬁve classes. The strength of every section should not exceed normally 40 students. Thus, there should be at least 200 students in a High School. However, I submit that, there are 88 Government High Schools, where the strength of the students is less than 200. In these High Schools there are 12,128 seats which can be filled up. I submit that, there are 94 Government run Upper Primary Schools in Hyderabad District. A Upper Primary School consists of classes 1st to 7th i.e. seven classes. The strength of every section should not exceed 40 students. Thus, there should be at least 280 students in Upper Primary School. However, I submit that, there are 66 Government Upper Primary Schools, where the strength of the students is less than 280. In these Upper Primary Schools, there are 11,184 seats which can be filled up. I submit that, there are 569 Government run Primary Schools in Hyderabad District. A Primary School consists of classes 1st to 5th i.e. ﬁve classes. The strength of every section should not exceed 40 students. Thus, there should be at least 200 students in a Primary School. However, I submit that, there are 471 Government Primary Schools, where the strength of the students is less than 200. In these Primary Schools, there are 54,921 seats which can be filled up. Thus, the total number vacant seats are as follows: (a) Government High School 12,128 (b) Government Upper Primary School 11,184 (c) Government Primary School 54,921 ------------- 78,233 ------------- In the rejoinder aﬃdavit ﬁled by him, Shri Mohd. Abid Ali has relied on Rule 21of the 1993 Rules under which the government is empowered to relax the Rules involving any undue hardship to any educational agency or in public interest and averred that there is no justiﬁcation to insist on providing playground and other facilities in the private schools because as many as 54,924 government schools and 7,927 private recognized schools in the State do not have any playground and they do not fulﬁll some other norms prescribed under the 1993 Rules. In paragraph 13 of his rejoinder-aﬃdavit, Shri Mohd. Abid Ali has averred as under: “It is respectfully submitted that the respondent in para 10 to 25 of the counter aﬃdavit has given mathematical ﬁgures to show that there exist 12,128 vacant seats in Government High Schools, 11,184 vacant seats in Government Upper Primary Schools and 54,921 vacant seats in Government Primary Schools and thus a total of 78,233 vacant seats are available in Government Schools. While giving the mathematical ﬁgures to show the availability of 78,233 vacant seats in the Government schools, the respondent has suppressed the following essential information with regard to these Government and Recognized schools. NO.OF SCHOOLS WITH GOVT. / RECOGNIZED No accommodation to students 24,405 3,998 schools No accommodation to H.M. 59,812 3,605 schools No accommodation to staff 64,980 5,038 schools No accommodation to N.T. staff 70,299 8,066 schools No library 70,661 7,128 schools No laboratory 70,811 10,519 schools No Play Ground 54,924 7,927 schools No Fire-extinguisher 72,606 12,970 schools No children escort 71,739 10,883 schools No Zebra Crossing 73,323 13,366 schools And above all No water facility 23,853 2,660 schools No urinals/lavatories 23,198 4,294 schools (the above ﬁgures have been extracted from the Status Report on fulfillment of norms by schools in Andhra Pradesh which has been ﬁled by the Director, School Education in Taken Up W.P.No.2058/06.) It is respectfully submitted that the acts of respondent in allowing thousands of school without fulﬁlling the norms as contemplated in Rules 1993 and rejecting the applications of the petitioners school only for not having playground annexed to their school is an act of discrimination under Art.14 of the Constitution of India.” Orders of the Court: Before proceeding further, we deem it proper to take notice of the restriction contained in order dated 26-4-2006 passed in Taken Up Writ Petition No.2058 of 2006, which has been projected by the petitioners as the basis for non- consideration of the applications made by them for grant of permission/recognition and some of the orders and pleadings filed in these petitions. 1) The relevant extracts of order dated 26-4-2006 passed in Writ Petition No.2058 of 2006 read as under: “We have gone through three volumes of reports submitted by the department of school education, Andhra Pradesh. These reports relate to the schools situated in Hyderabad and Secunderabad. The learned Government Pleader is directed to ensure that the reports in respect of the schools in all other districts of Andhra Pradesh are filed in the Court within a period of five weeks from today. The learned Amicus has given valuable suggestions, which if implemented, would go a long way to curb the menace of unauthorised schools and the schools, which are being run in residential buildings, majority of which do not comply with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 (for short, ‘the Rules’). Learned Advocate General says that the department will prepare a concrete action plan to deal with the situation created due to running of schools in residential areas and that too without adequate infrastructure and in some cases with virtually no infrastructure. We appreciate the exercise undertaken by the department and the stand taken by the learned Advocate General and deem it proper to adjourn the case to 29-06- 2006 with the following directions: 1. In future no Government school shall be established in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh without ensuring that the same has infrastructure and facilities as per the requirement of 1993 rules. 2. No private school shall be granted permission (provisional or otherwise) in the entire State of Andhra Pradesh unless the management of the school or the society running the school fulﬁls the conditions enumerated in the 1993 Rules and the policy instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. 3. The Director of School Education shall get a list of all unrecognised schools published in the newspapers so that the parents can be forewarned of the consequences of getting their pupils admitted in such unrecognised schools. Such list should be got published in two newspapers one English and one vernacular having wide circulation in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The needful be done on or before 16-06-2006.” 2) When the writ petitions were listed for admission hearing, the learned Single Judge, after taking cognizance of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2058 of 2006, directed that the cases be listed before the Division Bench. On 29.06.2006, the Division Bench issued notice in all the writ petitions (except Writ Petition No.11270 of 2006) to the respondents and directed them to ﬁle counter- aﬃdavit along with the report prepared by the competent authority after examining the compliance of the norms and parameters by the petitioners. In compliance of that order, inspection reports were produced on behalf of the respondents. After going through the reports, the Court expressed strong disapproval of the casual manner in which the inspection of the schools was carried out and passed order dated 30.08.2006. For the sake of convenient reference, the order recorded in Writ Petition No.11747 of 2006 is reproduced below: “This and connected ﬁve matters have been listed for consideration of the petitioners prayer for issue of a direction to the respondents to grant permission in terms of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools ) under the Private Management Rules, 1993 (for short ‘the 1993 Rules’). Sri S.Ramchander Rao, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in this and connected petitions invited our attention to the reports submitted by the concerned authorities of the Education Department in furtherance of order dated 29.6.2006 and submitted that the oﬃcer concerned has deliberately avoided giving of a comprehensive report with reference to the various parameters enumerated in the 1993 Rules. Learned counsel also lamented that while the petitioners are not being given permission to run the schools despite the fact that they have substantial facilities, more than 150 government schools are being run in poultry farms and buildings meant for cinema halls. He referred to some news paper reports and photographs published to show that government schools are being run in poultry farms and cinema theatres. In the context of the submission made by Sri Ramchander Rao, we asked the learned Government Pleader to elucidate whether or not the petitioners comply with the relevant parameters laid down in the rules and whether government schools fulﬁl those parameters or at least a part of them. We also asked the learned Government Pleader to clarify as to why a self explanatory report has not been prepared with reference to the requirements specified in Rule 5 of the 1993 Rules. Learned Government Pleader for Education fairly concedes that the report of the officers are laconic. We strongly disapprove the casual manner in which the oﬃcers concerned have carried out inspection of the schools established by the petitioners. This remissness on the part of the oﬃcer has compelled us to adjourn the case for today. Adjourned to 18.9.2006. In the meanwhile, the Director of School Education must depute a well trained oﬃcer to again inspect the buildings and sites where the petitioners have established schools and submit a comprehensive report to this Court within a period of ten days from today after supplying advance copy to the counsel for the petitioners. By way of abundant caution, we make it clear that any laxity on the part of the oﬃcers concerned may result in an order by the Court for initiation of disciplinary action against the erring officers.” Similar orders were passed in other petitions except Writ Petition No.11270 of 2006. 3) In compliance of the aforementioned order, fresh inspection of all the schools was carried out and reports prepared on the basis of such inspection were ﬁled in the Court. In the case of Srinivasa High School, inspection was carried out by Deputy Educational Oﬃcer, Golconda Zone on 04.09.2006 and report prepared by him was ﬁled along with additional aﬃdavit of Shri S. Jagannath Reddy, District Educational Officer, Hyderabad. The same was taken on record. 4) Additional counter-aﬃdavit ﬁled by Shri S. Jagannath Reddy was also taken on record. In Writ Petition No.11270 of 2006, the petitioners ﬁled large number of photographs and documents to show the status of the buildings of government and recognized private schools as also the strength of students in such schools. The Arguments: Shri S. Ramachandra Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 11747, 11749, 11893, 11900, 11902 and 11903 and Shri Mohd. Abid Ali, counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition No.11270 of 2006 argued that the condition specified in Rule 5 (7) of the