M. Venkateswarlu, Chittoor Dist. v. the State of a.P., Higher Education Dept., Hyd and Ano

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2023WP/5263/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. No. 5263 of 2011, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati examined a writ petition seeking aid status for a college with retrospective effect. The Court found that the petitioner's junior college had been absorbed into government service following a 2021 policy decision. Consequently, the Court held that the cause of action no longer survived and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was closed without costs and pending miscellaneous applications were also closed.

M. Venkateswarlu, Chittoor Dist. Vs the… — Education and Admissions | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 5263 OF 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

M. Venkateswarlu, S/o. M. Narayana Raju , Hindu, aged about 45 years, Occ: Physical Director, Working as A.G.S. Junor College K.T.Byepass Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Higher

¶11

Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad

¶12

The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioner's college to grant-in-aid as per the recommendations of the grant-in-aid committee with effect from 01.04.1995 instated of 01.11.1998 as highly arbitrary irregular, illegal and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to admit the college to grant-in-aid including the post of Physical Director.

¶15

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2011fWPMP. NO: 6546 OF 2011)

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to admit the college including the Physical Director's post of grant in aid with effect from 01.04.1995 as per the direction of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 8234 of 2001 dated 25.08.2009 pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A RAMAKRISHNA

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

¶22

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.5263 of 2011

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶26

of the Constitution of India seeking the following^{re lief:-}

¶27

“...to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not admitting the petitioners college to grant in aid as per the recommendations of the grant in aid committee with effect from 01.04.1995^instated of 01.11.1998 as highly arbitrary, irregular, illegal and discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to admit the college to grant in aid including the post of Physical Director and pass ”

¶28

When the writ petition came up for hearing on 04.03.2011,

¶29

this Court was pleased to grant the following interim^order:

¶30

“Pending further orders, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner also in the light of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 25/08/2009^{inW.P.No.8234} of2001.’’

¶31

Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing,^learned Government Pleader for Education has produced a copy of instructions of the Commissioner of Intermediate Educationrespondent No.2, vide Lr.Rc.No.Admn.II-2/WP-5263/2011/2023, dated 30.11.2023, wherein it is stated that the request^ofthe petitioner for admission into G.l.A. with effect from^01.04.1995

\ \

•s.

/XV-

instead of 01.11.1998, is not feasible in the light^oftheCourt orders in W.P.No.8234 of 2001, dated 25.08.2009. It^isfurther stated that vide GO.Rt.No.51 School Education (IE) department. dated 17.08.2021, all the AGS Aided Junior College staff were absorbed into Government including the petitioner,^whowas absorbed into Government Junior College for Boys, Chandragiri and was continued in Government Service. As such, the question of regulating the unaided service rendered by the petitioner^at parent college does not arise.

¶38

As the petitioner junior college was absorbed to Government Junior College for Boys, Chandragiri, in pursuance of the policy decision taken by the Government vide G.O.Rt.No.51, dated 17.08.2021, this Court is of the opinion that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for further adjudication.

¶39

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall^beno order as to costs.

¶40

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall also stand closed.

¶41

Sd/- K.KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTAf^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC«FFICER

¶42

¶43

One CC to Sri A. Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

Two CCs to GP for Higher Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (OUT] 3, Three CD Copies.

ssb /) P

HIGH COURT

DATED;15/12/2023

ORDER

WP.No.5263 of 2011

CLOSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS

M. Venkateswarlu, Chittoor Dist. v. the State of a.P., Higher Education Dept., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Venkateswarlu, Chittoor Dist. v. the State of a.P., Higher Education Dept., Hyd and Ano

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Srinivasa Stone Crushers Pvt. Ltd,Rep.by Ex Director Vs Div Forest Officer,Spsr Nellore Dist,and 4 Otrs

Andhra Evangelical Litheran Church Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Vadlamudi Venkata. Subrahmanyam, Hyd and 2 Others Vs Prl Secy, Environment, Forest, Science and Tech.,. Hyd and 3 Ot

Smt. Somaiah Gari Sridevi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Smt. Kude Laxmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary