St Jacobs Aided Up and School Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

Date of reserved for orders : ---------------Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2026 Date of uploading : 15.07.2026

¶2

APHC010345662026

¶3

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

¶4

[3458]

¶5

MONDAY, THE 13^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 18639 OF 2026

¶9

Between:

¶10

ST JACOBS AIDED UP AND SCHOOL, MUNDLAPADU, REP., BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, V.J.F. RAMESH BABU, MUNDALAPADU, GIDDELUR MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT - A.P.

¶11

L.M.K. HIGH SCHOOL,, KANIGIRI, REP., BY ITS CORRESPONDENT, BALAJI RAO, KANAGARI, KANAGARI MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT - A.P.

¶12

SRI BHRAMARAMBA AIDED PRIMARY SCHOOL,, CUMBUM, REP., BY ITS SRI LAKSHMI, CUMBUM, CUMBUM MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT - A.P.

¶13

...PETITIONER(S)

¶14

AND

¶15

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P-522503.

¶16

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, SECRETARIATE BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, A.P. - 522503

¶17

THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, SREEANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM,

¶18

2

¶19

KRISHNA DISTRICT, A.P-521456.

¶20

THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER MARKAPURAM DISTRICT, NEAR GANDHI BAZAR, MARKAPURAM, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT - A.P. - 523316

¶21

THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, GIDDELUR, GIDDELUR MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT - A.P - 522101

¶22

THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KANAGARI MANDAL, KANAGARI, KANAGARI MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT -A.P. - 523230

¶23

THE MANDAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, CUMBUM MANDAL, CUMBUM, CUMBUM MANDAL, MARKAPURAM DISTRICT -A.P. - 523333

¶24

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶26

1.C SUNIL KUMAR REDDY

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

¶29

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶30

The Court made the following Order:

¶31

Heard Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents.

¶32

The instant Writ Petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to release the maintenance grant to the petitioners’ schools for the academic years 2023-2024, 2024-2025 and 2025-2026.

¶33

3

¶34

Today, when the matter has been taken up for consideration, both the learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the earlier Judgment rendered by this court in W.P.No.3449 of 2003 dated 30.09.2016 wherein it was held that:

¶35

“21. In any view of the matter, the contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the petitioner is not entitled to maintenance grant in view of G.O.Ms.No.320, which was struck down by this Court in the Judgment referred supra. Even otherwise, the discriminatory attitude of the Government giving concession to one educational institution and denying benefit to the petitioner’s educational institution cannot be encouraged by the Courts, since it is arbitrary and discriminatory in not releasing grant-inaid to the petitioner’s association whose object is to provide free education. In those circumstances, this Court has no option except to hold that the inaction of the respondents is arbitrary in not releasing the maintenance grant-in-aid to the petitioner’s educational institution and consequently, I hold that the petitioner is entitled to all the benefits as decided in Recognised Schools Managements Associations case. Hence, the respondents are directed to work out maintenance grant @6% and arrange to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner’s educational institution, on par with other Schools.

¶36

4

¶37

22. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is allowed.”

¶38

Following the above order, this Writ Petition is allowed, in terms of the observations and directions of this Court in the said case. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39