A Public Interest Litigation regarding the non-release of a notification for appointing special educators for children with special needs. The Court held that the matter is currently under active review by the Supreme Court and disposed of the writ petition without addressing the substantive issues.
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)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR CHIEF JUSTICE AND
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WP(PIL) NO: 42 OF 2024
Between:
Special Needs Parents Association S?t t^ir 67/2020, D.No. 16-30, Vishnu towers Road,Near Yanamalakuduru, Penmaluru, Mandal, Krishna Dt. AP-PIN 520 President Badugu Venkata Siva Nagendra Prasad S/o Madan Mohan Rao, Aged 47 years. R/o. H No 24-24, Near Post Office 7379 41^09 5874 District-AP-PIN 520007 with Aadhar Number
... PETITIONER
AND
NTR District -Andhra Pradesh
... RESPONDENTS
•’f Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i in the form of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) declaring the action of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not releasing the notification which makes the petitioners being the parents of children with special needs having statutory rights under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 having right to get education in primary school through Special Teacher and/or Rehabilitation Professionals in terms of the Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 and to place the Special teachers in the Schools as per Teacher Pupil Ratio prescribed by the Government of India i in respect of special education as per the Gazettes of India vide G.O.No.56, Amendment to the Rehabilitation Council of India (Amendment). Act 1992 (Act.No.34 of 1992), G.O No.47. The Rehabilitation Council of India (Amendment), Act 2000 and The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (Act No.49 OF 2016) as unreasonable, arbitrary. illegal, against the Rules and the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India vide orders in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2016 and i in violation of Article 21-A and Article 14 of the Constitution of Ind ia and for a declaration as such with a consequential direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to release the notification which makes the children with special needs to have the education through the Special Teachers and holders of B.Ed/D.Ed - Special Education Degree Holders eligible for the appointment of primary school pupil-teachers and school assistants in secondary levels respectively and to tram up the Secondary Grade Teachers that are working in elementary level in due consultation with Rehabilitation Council of India and to place these teachers in the Schools as per Teacher Pupil Ratio prescribed in
%
accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India vide orders in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2016.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation of the Petitioner dated 08-052023, issue the speaking order to consider to include the Special Teachers in the notification issued by Respondent vide G.O. Ms. No. 11 (School Education (Ser.l) Dept 12-02-2024 for Andhra Pradesh State Teacher Eligibility Test dated vide for the appointment of primary school pupil-teachers and school assistants in secondary levels respectively and to train up the Secondary Grade Teachers that are working in elementary level in due consultation with RehabilitationCouncil of India and to place these teachers in the Schools as per Teacher Pupil Ratio prescribed in W.P.(C) No. 132 of 2016.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : GP FOR SCHOOLEDUCATION
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : M/s. R. SUDHA RANI, SC FOR SSA
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 : SRI JUPUDI V.K. YAGNA DUTT, CENTRAL GOVT. COUNSEL
The Court made the following: ORDER
%
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADF,.<^TT- AMARAVATI
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAEUR, CHIEF JUSTICE &
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
WrlLPetltlon rPH^No.42 of 2024
Between:
CwSN Parents Association Children with Special Needs Parents Association Regd. with Registration No.67/2020, D.No. 16-30, Vishnu Towers Road, Near Post Office, Yanamalakuduru, Penmaluru Mandal Krishna District, A.P. PIN 520 007 Rep., by its President Badugu Venkata Siva Nagendra Prasad.
... Petitioner
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh Rep., by its Prl.Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi &? six others.
..Respondents
Mr. Tagore Yadav Yaragorla, counsel for the petitioner. Government Pleader for School Education counsel for respondent Nos.l&?2.
Ms. R. Sudha Rani, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.3 Se 4. Mr. Jupudi V.K. Yagnadutt, learned Central Government counsel counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 7.
2
HCJ & RRR,J WP(P1L)_42_2024
Dt.:gl.02.2024
PC:
The present petition has been filed in public interest to highlight the inaction of the official respondents in otherwise complying with the directions of the Apex Court with regard to the children with special needs as rendered in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [2021 SCC Online SC 1005],
- From the record, it appeairs that after the judgmentof the Apex Court was rendered in the aforementioned case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court is also closely monitoring the compliance of the directions so issued and has been seeking compliance reports from various States including the State of Andhra Pradesh,whichis duly represented by a counsel before the Apex Court.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
To,
//TRUE COPY// SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT GISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
NTR District -Andhra Pradesh.
Bhavan New Delhi
HIGH COURT
DATED:21/02/2024
0
ORDER
WP(PIL).No.42 of 2024
DISPOSING OF THE WP(PIL) WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should deal with issues regarding compliance with Apex Court directions on special needs education when already monitored by the Supreme Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of IndiaReferred¶48
Rajneesh Kumar Pandey v. Union of India [2021 SCC Online SC 1005] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Special Needs Parents Association
State of Andhra Pradesh
Union of India
National Council for Educational Research And Training
Rehabilitation Council of India
DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
