HON’BLE SHRI G.S. SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18919 of 2006 Between: East Godavari Sahajeevan Private Educational Institutions Association (Convents), East Godavari district, Represented by its Secretary. ..Petitioner And State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Education Department, Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents. :ORDER: Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A. Venkataramana for Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy Counsel for respondent No1 & 2 : Government Pleader for Education. September 28, 2006 Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ This petition has been placed before the Division Bench in furtherance of order dated 13-9-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner claims to be an association of the unrecognized schools operating in East Godavari District. It has questioned the legality of notice issued by District Educational Officer, East Godavari (respondent No.2), which was published in the vernacular daily newspaper “Eenadu” dated 29-5-2006 whereby the officer concerned warned the parents of the students that they must ensure that their children are admitted only in educational institutions which are established after obtaining requisite permission from the competent authority and are recognized by the Education Department, else, their children will be treated ineligible to appear in 7th and 10th class examinations. In the affidavit filed by Sri Rajana Venkata Sanyasi Rao (Secretary of the petitioner association), it has been averred that most of the government- run educational institutions do not have sufficient number of teachers and, on that account, the number of dropouts is increasing every year, and that in order to meet the need of education in the remote areas, the members of the petitioner association have set up schools with adequate facilities of play ground, library, laboratory etcetera. According to the deponent, the members of the petitioner association are sharing the burden of the State which is under a constitutional duty to provide free education to the children up to the age of 14 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that in view of the public notice, the parents are not coming forward to admit their wards in the unrecognized educational institutions and this has badly affected the institutions operating in the remote areas of the State. We have heard Sri A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, who reiterated that in view of the impugned notice, the parents have stopped admitting their children in un-recognised educational institutions and, on that account, all such institutions have been badly affected. He argued that in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in Articles 41 and 45 of the Constitution, the State is duty bound to provide free education to the children up to the age of 14 years and as the private educational institutions are supplementing the State effort in this regard, they cannot be prevented from admitting the students only on the ground of lack of recognition. In our opinion, there is no merit in the submission of the learned counsel and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. In terms of the provisions contained in the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short, ‘the Act’), recognition by the competent authority is sine qua non for establishing an educational institution. The petitioner has not challenged the vires or constitutionality of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. Therefore, it cannot contend that the public notice issued by respondent No.2 forewarning the parents not to admit their wards in the unrecognized schools suffer from any legal infirmity. Rather, the notice is intended to make the parents aware of the fact that admission of children in un-recognised institutions may ultimately jeopardize their career. The petitioner’s claim that its members are discharging governmental function and, therefore, they should be allowed to operate even unrecognized educational institutions may sound attractive to some people but, in our considered view, this plea is wholly meritless and is liable to be rejected. It is true that by virtue of the recent constitutional amendment, the right to receive education up to the age of 14 years has been made an integral part of the chapter relating to Fundamental Rights, but this amendment cannot be construed as conferring a right on the un-recognised educational institutions to admit students. In our view, the regulatory mechanism enshrined in the Act and the rules framed thereunder is in consonance with the constitutional ethics and the notice issued by respondent No.2 does not violate any of the fundamental or legal right of the members of the petitioner association so as to warrant judicial intervention. With the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, W.P.M.P.No.23794 of 2006 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. G.S. SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 28-09-2006 pvks