Allowed

The State of Ap v. Myla Srinivasa Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WA/872/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal filed by the State against a direction to release funds to a BC student who changed his course without prior approval. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order directing immediate release, but directed the State Committee to consider the petitioner's request for approval given his accident.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order directing immediate release of funds set aside; the Petitioner directed to file an application for approval of the course change with the State Level Selection Committee within four

The State of Ap Vs Myla Srinivasa Rao — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

<br>

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 872 OF 2023

¶6

Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Preferred against the order of the dated.20-01-2023 in WP.No. 157/2023 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, B.C. Welfare Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P.

¶9

The Director, B.C. Welfare, State of Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada, A.P., The District Collector, Guntur, Guntur District.

¶10

...Appellants

¶11

AND

¶12

Myla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Gurumurthy, Aged about 54 years, R/o. 13-6-42/1, Malleswara Swamy Veedhi, Pinapadu, Tenali, Guntur District

¶13

The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education, Neeladri towers, 6th Battalion Road, Mangalagiri, Andhra Pradesh.

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP.No. 157/2023, Dt. 20-01-2023, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal.

¶17

Counsel for the Appellants:GP FOR SOCIALWELFARE

¶18

Counsel for the RespondentNo.1: SRI MD SALEEMPASHA

¶19

Counsel for the RespondentNo.2:

¶20

The Court made the following Judgment:

¶21

¶22

m THE HIGH COURT OP ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶23

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.872 of 2023

¶27

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, B.C. Welfare Department, Secretariat, Veleigapudi, Amaravathi, A.P. and two others.

¶28

... Appellants

¶29

Versus

¶30

Myla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Gurumm?thy, Aged about 54 years, R/o. 13-6-42/1, MaUeswara Swamy Veedhi, Pinapadu, Tenah, Gimtur District and another.

¶31

...Respondents

¶32

Government Pleader for Social Welfare, Counsel for the appellants.

¶33

Md. Saleem Pasha, Counsel for respondent No.l.

¶34

None for respondent No.2.

¶35

DATE : 06.02.2024

¶36

PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ:

¶37

The present writ appeal under clause 15 of the Letters^Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.l57 of 2023, whereby the writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge following the

¶38

HCJ €t RRR, J W.A.No.872 of 2023

¶39

¶40

decision rendered in W.P.No.38282 of 2022, dated 05.12.2022^and has issued directions to the official respondents to release the sanctioned funds under the scheme prescribed by the^Government for Overseas Education for BG students.

¶41

Briefly stated the material facts are that the Government^of Andhra Pradesh adopted a pohcy for providing financial^assistance to the students for pursuing higher education in foreign^countries in professional and other graduate courses. The scheme^wasmeant for the benefit of the Backward Classes to which the petitioner belongs. This pohcy was reflected in G.O.Ms.No.29, BC Welfare (B) Department, dated 27.08.2016.

¶42

Clause (f)” of the aforesaid Government Order prescribed^the mandatory conditions for determining not only the ehgibihty conditions but also inter alia prescribed under “Clause - f (vi)” as under:

¶43

(Vi) The Candidate can change the course of study or research. Permission will be accorded on a case by case basis, subject to the approval by the State Level Selection Committee constituted under the Scheme. ”

¶44

The petitioner apphed in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.29,^dated 27.08.2016 and therefore, sought admission for undergoing^Master of Construction Management course in Deakin University,^Australia

¶45

3 HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.872 of 2023

¶46

for the academic year 2018-19. The State Selection Committee constituted for screening the eUglbUity of the candidates imder the scheme as envisaged in G.O.Ms.No.29. after appraisal of the requisite documents, approved the petitioner for admission in the said course in Australia. The petitioner was then entitled to receive an amount of Bs.10.00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) under the said scheme for undergoing Master of Construction Management course in the said University.

¶47

The petitioner after completing the first Semester in the aforementioned University in Australia is stated to have met with an accident and thereafter discontinued his second Semester studies and later joined a diploma course in Management from the Frontier Education, Melbourne in Australia. It is on that account that the General Administration (Vigilance and Enforcement) Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh held the petitioner inehgible to the aforementioned amount of RS.10,00,000/- under the G.O.Ms.No.29, in view of the fact that he had not obtained the prior permission from the concerned authorities for change of course and the University. 5. In the backdrop of the aforementioned facts, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking an appropriate direction for release of the said amount. By virtue of the judgment and order impugned, the

¶48

¶49

HCJ & RRR,J W.A.No.872 of 2023

¶50

learned single Judge directed the respondents for release of sanctioned funds under the Overseas Education Scheme for BC students within a period of six (6) weeks, This direction was issued following the direction earher i issued in W.P.No.38282 of 2022, dated 05.12.2022.

¶51

On a perusal of the judgment rendered in W.P.lsro.38282 of 2022, it can be seen that this was a case where the petitioner had claimed that he had undergone the Master Degree in Chemical Engineering in the United Kingdom, pursuant to the sanction order issued by the official respondent and that an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) which was required to be paid ip Ipstalmepts by the Government 1 in terms of the scheme was withheld even when the course had been completed successfully by the petitioner.

¶52

In those circumstances the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to release the sanctioned funds. '?'• Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned single Judge had committed an error inasmuch as there was no similarity between the facts of the case decided on 05.12.2022 in W.P.Wo.38282 of 2022 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein inasmuch as this was a case where the sanction had been

¶53

HCJ & RRR, J W.A.No.872of2023

¶54

¶55

granted to the petitioner to undergo the coiu’se in Deakin University, Australia whereas he had on his own changed his course of study without approval by the State Level Selection Gonunittee in terms of Clause - f (vi) of the G.O.Ms.No.29 . 8. Learned coimsel for the respondents, however, does not dispute either the existence of “Clause - f (vi)” of^{theG.O.Ms.No.29} nor the fact that the petitioner had not sought any approval before changing tracks and seeking admission in a course different from the one for which the sanction had been accorded. To that extent, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge may not have been legally justified in issuing directions to the official respondents to release the amount in favour of the petitioner and to that extent the judgment and order is, accordingly, set aside.

¶56

Having held so, we are of the opinion that while it may be true that the petitioner had not sought the approval for purposes of changing his course of study from the State Level Selection Committee constituted under the Government Order, yet^itcanbe seen that “Clause - f (vi)” does not at all envisage seeking any ‘prior approval’ which therefore, suggests that even if the petitioner had taken admission in a different course, he could still apply for approval explaining the circumstances m which he was forced to change tracks midway after having taken admission and undergone

¶57

6 HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.872 of 2023

¶58

the first Semester completely and to some extent the second Semester of the course in. regard to which he had obtained the sanction.

¶59

We need to highlight here that the petitioner has claimed that he had suffered an accident while undergoing the course and may be it is on that account that he could have been prevented from undergoing the course for which he had obtained the sanction for grant of monetary support. Issues like shortage in attendance etc., may have forced the petitioner to abandon the course of study. However, all these factors may have to be projected by the petitioner before the State Level Selection Committee under the G.O.Ms.No.29, BC Welfare (B) Department, dated 27.08.2016.

¶60

Be that as it may, we hope that the State Level Selection Committee would consider aU these aspects if a formal application is filed for seeking approval of the State Level Selection Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had since completed the said course, if the said application is filed not later than four (04) weeks from today. The committee shall consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view other oases where such a change in course of study was permitted either before taking admission in the new course or thereafter, and assuming there is no similar case of granting approval like the one in the instant case. even then the

¶61

HCJ a RRR, J W.A.No.872 of 2023

¶62

¶63

. e

¶64

Committee would consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. The decision be taken positively within a period of six (06) weeks from the date the apphcation is filed for such an approval.

¶65

The writ appeal is, accordingly, disposed of No order as to costs.

¶66

Pending miscellaneous apphcations, if any, shaU stand^closed.

¶67

¶68

Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY R^STRAR To, SECTI&N OFFICER Neeladri towefs® 6* Education 2 rr to ^ Manga'ag"-'. Andhra Pradesh. i' Saleem Pasha, Advocate [OPUC] Pradesh [OUT] I TwS CD Cop?es of Andhra RAM SK

‘I

' 4 /

HIGH COURT

DATED:06/02/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.872 of 2023

0 6 APR 202^J r:>VirDll
o-f"
Current Section ,
.^spatch;^^

¶77

-?3.\iM

¶78

DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

The State of Ap v. Myla Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Ap v. Myla Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dredging Corporation of India, Vs M/s. Ims Ship Management Pvt. Ltd.

Gollapalli Chalapathi Sarma Vs the State of Ap

Yellapu Venkat Ramana Murthy, Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Smt Gutta Padmavathi Vs Neerukonda Venkata Lakshmi

Nelapudi Veeranna Vs Korukonda Subba Rao

J.v.Narasimha Raju Vs M/S.Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Engineering College