The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking permission to fill vacant aided posts in accordance with a common order passed in a batch of writ petitions, directing the respondents to follow statutory procedures for recruitment of staff in aided schools.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 606 OF 2024
Between:
T. M. Rao High School, Batiprolu, Guntur District,rep.by its Correspondent and Secretary P. Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o. P.R.K. Gupta, agedabout68years,Battiprolu village and Mandal, Bapatal District. ...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 a Writ or direction or order moreparticularlyoneinthenatureof Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondentsinfailuretotakesteps to accord permission to fill the vacant aided postsisillegalandincontravention of the provisions of the Right of Children to Freeandcompulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Schedule annexed thereto and also in violation of the provisions of the Education act and the rules made there under and consequently, direct the respondents to permit the petitioner school to fillthevacantaided posts in accordance with the proposals submitted by the petitioner.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct>the respondents to take a decision on the proposals submitted by the petitioner dt. 15.12.2023 in accordance with the provisions of the Right of Children 4o free and compulsory education Act and theEducationActand the rules made thereunder and, pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION
The Court made the following: ORDER
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.606 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India seeking the followingrelief:-
“...to issue issue a Writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in failure to take steps to accord permission to ifll the vacant aided posts is illegal and in contravention of the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Schedule annexed thereto and also in violation of the provisions of the Educationactandthe rules made thereunder and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner school to fillthevacant aided posts in accordance with the proposals submitted by the petitioner...”
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Education.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 05.01.2023, passed by this Court in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch.
- Learned Government Pleader does not refute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. The relevant portion of the order, dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch reads as follows:
2
“i) The respondent-authorities are hereby directed to permit the petitioners’ institutions to fill up alltheAided vacancies in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 and also as per the Schedule prescribed under Sections 19 & 25 of the Act, 2009; ii) In future also, whenever vacancies arise, the institutions have to make applications to the Competent authorities for filling up the vacancies; iii) On such applications, the Competent authorities shall inform the institution about the availability of qualified surplus staff, within a period of (04) weeks from the date of application and allot said surplusstaff on permanent basis;
iv) If surplus staff are not available, the Competent authority shall inform the same and permit the petitioners’-institutions to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the above said Rule, preferably withina period of two (02) months; v) So far as minority institutions are concerned, the above procedure is not applicable insofar as allotmentof surplus staff are concerned, in view of the Judgmentsof Division Bench of this Court rendered in Modem High School Zamisthanpur v. Covernment of Andhra Pradesh and others and Ester Axene Res. High School and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others vi) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authorities within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
- Having regard to the facts and circumstances, thisWrit Petition is disposed of, in terms of the common order passed in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch, dated 05.01.2023. Noorderas
to costs.
3
/
- Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order,dated 05.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.30927 of2022tothis order.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any.
shall also stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- K. TATA RAO DEPUTV^EGISTRAR SEc6Wt5^ICER
To,
(Along with copy of the order dated.05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927of2022 enclosed herewith)*
Cnr gi
HIGH COURT
DATED:09/01/2024
ORDER
WP.No.606 of 2024
fi o C3\i
s 2 8 MAR 2G2'i C)'rnj>h
Current Section
Oe
lUopH
'A,
DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
Writ Petition Nos.30927. 2888, 4938, 8014. 8197. 30548. 31010, 31039. 31730, 33163. 35592. 37415. 37467. 37508. 38250. 38924. 40923 and 42367 of 2022
COMMON ORDER;-
As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order.
- The petitioners in these cases are the management of private Schools. The grievance of the writ petitionersin all these Writ Petitions is the action of the official respondents in not permitting the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacant aided posts in their institutions in accordance with law.
All the petitioners-institutions are private aidedschools. All the institutions got recognition and thereafter, some posts have admitted into Grant-in-aid by the Government. The appointment of staff in the Aided institutions is governed by Rule-12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994. As per the terms in the said G.O., as and when vacancy arises, the Management shall make an applicationtothe Competent authority, who in turn would grant permission to the
2
Management to constitute staff selection committee consisting of nominee of District Educational Officer (DEO) as well as the subject experts. Thereafter, the Management is free to make appoint from among the selected candidates after following procedure of giving notification in newspaper and also drafting the candidates from concerned employment exchange.
(ii) Subsequently, the government issued a memo, dated 20.10.2004 imposing ban on recruitment of staff intoAidedinstitutions. Thereafter, batch of Writ Petitions were filed i.e., W.P.No.9503 of 2005 and batch. After elaborate hearing, all the writ petitions were allowed and the ban imposed by the State government was set aside. vide common order, dated 30.07.2013. Thereafter, theGovernment filed Writ Appeal No.216 of 2014, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, the Government preferred appeal in S.L.P.No.8547 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed on 14.09.2015. As there is no other go. the Government issued memo, vide Memo No. 18836/SC.PS/A1/2012, dated 04.01.2017 permitting the Aided Institutions, who approached the Court to fill up the vacant posts by lifting theban.
(iii) Subsequently, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.40, School Education (PS) Department, dated 30.06.2017 and as per the
3
said G.O., the Commissioner of School Education has issued proceedings in Rc.No.90/PS-1/2010-3, dated 20.07.2017 directing all the Regional Joint Directors of School Education and District Educational Officers to take necessary action in filling up all the vacancies in the schools. As per the said G.O., and consequential proceedings of the 2 nd respondent, dated 20.07.2017, all the petitioners-institutions requested the Competent authorities to permit them to fill up the vacant posts and to that effect, they made applications on various dates to the respective competentauthorities.
(iv) Subsequently, as per the instructions of the Government, the 2"*^ respondent once again issued proceedings, dated 12.09.2017 keeping the recruitment in abeyance. Subsequently, the said proceedings were challenged in W.P.No.1041 of 2018and this Court suspended the said abeyance proceedings, vide ordersinI.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.1041 of 2018, dated 29.02.2020. Thereafter, all the petitioners-institutions made several applications to the Competent authorities seeking permission to fill up vacancies in Aided Schools. Till now, the Competent authorities did not take any decision or granted permission to fill the vacancies in Aided Schools. Aggrieved by the same, all these writ petitioners have come up withthebatch of Writ Petitions.
4
- Perused the entire material on record. This Court has also passed interim orders in most of the Writ Petitions directing the Competent authorities to permit the petitioners-Institutions to fill up vacancies in Aided Schools by considering the proposal submitted by them. In spite of interim orders, the Competent authorities have not permitted the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacancies, Consequently, some of the petitioners-i -institutions filed contempt cases before this Court and they are pending.
- Learned Government Pleader for School Education filed counter-affidavit, inter alia contending that Aided schools should maintain teacher-student ratio as 1:40 for filling up of vacancies and that the petitioners-institutions have to fill up vacancies in Aided schools as per the provisions prescribed under Rule 12(3)(A) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (PS2) Department, dated 01.01.1994.
- Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, scrupulously submitted that so far as the contention of the official respondents with regard to teacher-student ratio is concerned, the same is governed by the schedule prescribed under Sections 19 a 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of 2009). For better appreciation, the said Schedule is extracted hereunder:
5
THE SCHEDULE
(See Sections 19 and 25 )
Norms and Standards for a School
Sl.No. Item Norms and Standards
Number of teachers
Admitted children
Number of teachers
(a) For First Up to Sixty Two
class to 5'*'
Class
Between sixty-one to ninety Three
Between Ninety one to one Four
hundred and twenty
Between one hundred and Five
twenty one to two hundred
Above one hundred and fiftv Five Plus one
Children
Head Teacher
Above two hundred Children Pupil-Teacher
Ratio
(excluding Head
Teacher) shall not exceed
forty.
(b) For Sixth
class to (1)Atclassleastso thatonethereteachershall p be..er
eight class at least one teacher each
for -
(i) Science and
Mathematics ;
(ii) Social Studies ;
(iii) Languages
(2) At least one teacher for
every thirty-five children
(3) Where admission of
children is above one
hundred-
(') A full time head
teacher
(ii) Part time instructors
for
(A)Art Education
(B) Health and
Physical
Education
(C) Work Education
6
- As such this being the Central Enactment, the State government is bound to follow the said Schedule. Further, so far as Rule-12(3)(A) of the Rules, 1993 is concerned, the petitionerinstitutions have no objection to follow the Rule 12(3)(A) of the Rules, 1993. For better appreciation of the said provision,thesame is extracted hereunder:
12,Appointment of Staff
“Rule 12(3A) : Before iflling up of the aided teachingor non-teaching posts, the educational agency shall necessarily obtain clearance from the Competent authority, to the effect that, there are no surplus posts in the concerned district, and if there are suitable surplus candidates, they should be deployed against the said vacancies as per the subject requirements, The competent authority shall however obtain the permission from the Government before issuing clearance for filling up ofany aided posts
- As per Rule 12 (3A) of the above said Rules, vacancieswill be filled up by surplus candidates. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel states that respondent authorities are not sending surplus candidates and they are sending candidates only by way of adjustment and thereafter, recalling them, which happened in manycases. At this juncture, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to
7
inform the stand of the Government with regard to sub-rule 3(A) of Rule 12. In such circumstances, learned Government Pleader filed affidavit of the Commissioner of School Education. Para-5 of the said affidavit reads as follows :
' to submit that instructions were issued to all the Regional Joint Directors of School Education and District Educational Officers with a request to identify the surplus teachers/ existing teachers of defunct aided schools as per Rule 10(12) in G.O.Ms.No.l, Education, dated 01.01.1994 and transfer the surplus teachers as per Rule 10 (17) in G.O.Ms.No.l, Education, dated 01.01.1994 on a permanent basis and the same is under process”.
- In view of the above stand taken by the Government, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions :
8
2002 (1) ALD 96 ^ MANU/AP/0045/2019
9
Vi) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authorities within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ;
No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
day of January,2023. Note : LR Copy to be marked B/o RPD
k.suresh reddy,j
10
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH RFnnv
Writ Petition Nos.30927. 28«« ^938. 8014. 8197. 310IO ^1039, 31730. 33163. 35592. 37415, 374A7 3/508, 38250. 38924. 40923 and 423/i7 of 2022
Plated: 05.01.20?^
Note : LR Copy to be marked B/o RPD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents failed to take steps to accord permission to fill vacant aided posts in the petitioner school?
Whether the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner school to fill the vacant aided posts?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.30927 of 2022Referred¶30
Modern High School, Zamisthanpur v. Government of Andhra PradeshReferred¶99
Modern High School, Zamisthanpur V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Ester Axene Res. High School v. State of Andhra PradeshReferred¶99
Ester Axene Res. High School and Others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
2 provisions across 2 enactments
T. M. Rao High School, Batiprolu, Guntur District rep. by its Correspondent and Secretary P. Mallikarjuna Rao
State of Andhra Pradesh
Commissioner of School Education, Education Department
Regional Joint Director, School Education, Guntur
District Educational Officer, Guntur
District Educational Officer, Bapatla
V.Sujatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
