IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 22357 of 2008 Between: 1 V.S.P.Bhattanadha Swamy S/o.V.S.P.Rangaswamy Ayyangar R/o.5-9-231/222, Employees colony Yapral, Secunderabad 2 Seetha Bhavani W/o.K.V.Ramanatha Swamy R/o.23-84,Plot No.213 & 214,R.K.Nagar Road No.4,Malakajgiri, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner, Dept of Higher Education, Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more specifically one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the junior lecturers in their committee for the academic year in preparation of syllabus of Sanskrit subject (first year) as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 21(a) of the Constitution of India and further direct the respondents to delete the objectionable portion as represented by the petitioner vide their representation dated 29.7.2008 in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.RAMACHANDRA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: The 1st petitioner herein claims to be the General Secretary of Andhra Pradesh Sanskrit Lecturers Association, established in the year 1986 and the 2nd petitioner herein claims to be the lady representative of the said association. They filed this writ petition questioning the action of the respondents in not considering the junior lecturers in their committee for the academic year in preparation of syllabus of Sanskrit subject. It is the case of the petitioners that the Board, which has been constituted for prescribing this year’s sanskrit syllabus has introduced a very high level, complex and stories of obscenity and, therefore, they made a representation to the 1st respondent to consider the opinion of the association about the new syllabus and pattern of question paper, which is being set up on 29.7.2008 but so far no action has been taken on their representation. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the panel of subject committee members of the Board of Intermediate Education consists of Professors from Universities, Lecturers from Degree Colleges, Junior Lecturers from Junior Colleges and a Head Master or subject teacher from Secondary school. As per the existing list of subject committee members in Sanskrit, there are two Junior Lecturers and one Principal of Government Junior College and with their consultation only the syllabus was prescribed and hence it cannot be said that the Junior Lecturers were not consulted before prescribing the syllabus. In regard to the higher level syllabus, it is stated that there was a lot of criticism from public that the previous syllabus of second landguage Sanskrit at Intermediate level is of very low standard especially when compared to that of other second languages like Telugu and Hindi and to avoid further criticism and to bring parity between the second languages in terms of syllabus, question paper pattern and evaluation, the new syllabus was introduced on par with other second languages and the same has been ratified in the 64th meeting of the Broad Based Committee constituted to look into various issues related to second languages especially, Sanskrit.. It is stated that the representation of the petitioners was not considered as already a decision was taken to maintain parity in syllabus, question paper pattern and evaluation of second languages like Telugu, Sanskrit, Hindi, Urdu and Arabic. That apart, the objection raised by the junior lecturers in regard to elements of obscenity in certain lessons has already been considered by the Board and the same were removed. In view of the above counter averments, the allegations leveled by the petitioners that the syllabus prescribed is of high standards, complex and that the opinions of the junior lecturers was not taken into consideration cannot be sustained. That apart, none of the students or their parents have come forward before the Board or before this Court complaining about the high standards or obscenity in the lessons prescribed. What syllabus has to be prescribed to the students is a matter to be examined by the academic bodies like the respondent Board and the Universities. This Court does not have the expertise knowledge or is in a position to evaluate the syllabus prescribed to the students. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reasons to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.2.3.2009 msv