IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5074 of 2005 Between: 1. Chekurapadu Secondary Education Committee, Rep. by its Secretary, Sirigiri Venkateswarlu, R/o. Chekurupadu Village, Naguluppala Padu Mandal, Prakasham District. 2. Sirigiri Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Rangaiah, Sri Venugopal Swamy Oriental High School, R/o. Chekurupadu Village, Naguluppala Padu Mandal, Prakasham District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of School Education, Hyderabad. 3 The District Educational Officer, Ongole. 4 The Deputy Educational Officer, Ongole. 5 Srigiri Biragi Chowdhary, S/o. Venkateswarlu, R/o. Chekurupadu Village, Naguluppalapadu Mandal, Prakasam 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 may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings of the 3rd Respondent in Rc.No. 43/B5/2003, dated 03-03-2005 thereyby appointing the 4th Respondent as Special Officer in place of Correspondent of Sri Venugopala Swamy, Oriental High School, Chekurupadu Village, as one without jurisdiction, violatie of Principles of natural justice, illegal and arbitrary and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 4: GP FOR EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.5: MR.NIMMAGADDA SATYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioners in this writ petition assail the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, Ongole in Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 03.03.2005 whereby and whereunder the Deputy Educational Officer, Ongole-4th respondent has been appointed as a Special Officer in place of the Correspondent of Sri Venugopala Swamy Oriental High School, Chekurupadu village. 2. Sirigiri Venkateswarlu, who is the 2nd petitioner herein, has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Various proceedings have been detailed in the affidavit. It is suffice to refer paras. 7 to 11 of the writ affidavit, which read as follows: “7. I submit that consequent to the said dismissal of the suit, the 5th Respondent filed O.P. under Section 23 of the said Act before the court of District Judge, Ongole on 29.07.2004 and the same has been numbered as SR.O.P.No.1 of 2004 on the file of 1st Additional District Judge, Ongole. In the said O.P., the 5th respondent also filed I.A.Nos.573 and 574 seeking similar interlocutory reliefs as sought in the I.As. in O.S.No.689 of 2003. 8. I submit that 5th respondent has not pursued the said I.As. and he has been reporting not ready on various datesof hearing of said I.As. Ultimately the said I.As. were dismissed on 25.01.2005 for non prosecution. 9. While matters stood thus, on 05.03.2005, I have received the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 03.03.2005 in Rc.No.43/B5/2003 inter alia appointing the Deputy Educational Officer, Ongole the 4th respondent herein, as Special Officer in the place of present Correspondent to look after the affairs of the School until finalization of cases about disputes of School Education Committee. From the perusal of the said proceedings, it is evident that the said proceedings has been issued at the behest of the representation of the 5th Respondent, dated 12.08.2004. Questioning the said proceedings the present Writ Petition is filed. 10. I submit that the impugned proceedings of the 3rd Respondent is illegal, arbitrary, one without jurisdiction and void ab initio. 11. The 3rd Respondent has no jurisdiction in the circumstances of the case for issuing the impugned proceedings for the sole reason that the power of appointing Special Officer is conferred on him not because of existence of disputes between the management. This Honourable Court has categorically held that in such circumstances the Educational Authorities have no power to appoint Special Officers. The impugned proceedings itself shows that it has been issued on the sole ground that there are disputes in the Managing committee. In fact the 3rd respondent is party to the said suit and O.P.” 2. Rule Nisi came to be issued on 15.03.2005. An interim suspension order came to be passed on the even date vide WPMP No.6740 of 2005. The respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance and filed counter- affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that proceedings in Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 03.03.2005 issued by the 3rd respondent have been cancelled under proceeding in Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 09.04.2005. Para.6 of the counter-affidavit reads as hereunder: “6. According to the legal opinion of the Government Pleader of District Court, Ongole, the District Educational Officer, Ongole has issued orders in Proceedings Rc.No.43/B5/2003, Dt.3.3.2005 by appointing the Deputy Educational Officer, Ongole as Special Officer to S.V.S. Oriental High School, Chekurapadu in place of present correspondent. Aggrieved by this Sri S.Venkateswarlu, Present Correspondent has filed this W.P.No.5074/2005, before the Hon’ble High Court with a prayer to suspend the above proceedings dated 03.03.2005. The Hon’ble High Court issued orders dated 15.03.2005 on W.P.M.P.NO.6740/2005 in W.P.No.5074/2005 stating that “Notice pending further orders interim suspension as prayed for”. At this juncture and in obedience to the Hon’ble High Court orders, the District Educational Officer, Ongole has issued orders in Proceedings Rc.No.43/B5/2003, Dt.9.4.2005 by canceling the Proceedings Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 3.3.2005 subject to the out come of the Hon’ble court orders in SROP No.1/2004, I.A.No.574/2004 in SROP No.1/2004 O.S.No.755/2004 and W.p.no.5074/2005. In view of the circumstances submitted above, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss this W.P.No.5074/2005 along with W.P.M.P.No.6740/2005 in W.P.No.5074/2005, since the District Educational Officer, Ongole has already cancelled his Proceedings Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 3.3.2005, as per the orders dated 15.03.2005 of the Hon’ble High Court, and pass orders and such other orders as this Hon’ble High Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners. In the writ petition, the petitioners assail the validity of the proceeding in Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 03.03.2005 issued by the District Educational Officer, Ongole-3rd respondent. It is evident from the counter-affidavit that the said proceeding has been cancelled under proceeding Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 09.04.2005. Copy of the proceeding in Rc.No.43/B5/2003, dated 09.04.2005 has been placed on record. Such is the situation, nothing survives in this writ petition for adjudication. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:29th July, 2009. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}