Allowed

Rajupalepu Purnachandra Rao, v. The Director of School Education

Telangana HC8 Nov 2010WP/11190/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that an earlier Lok Adalath award is binding. It set aside orders denying the petitioner's application to be the school Correspondent, directing authorities to consider the award and reconsider the application, noting Rule 55 does not govern Correspondent qualifications.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders setting aside the petitioners application to become school Correspondent were set aside and the petitioners application was directed to be reconsidered.

Rajupalepu Purnachandra Rao, Vs The Director of… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU

¶2

W.P. Nos. 11190 of 2005 and 5841 of 2004

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

The very writ petitions were disposed of on 8.8.2007

¶5

as under:

¶6

“W.P. No. 11190 of 2005:

¶7

Be that as it may, since the Lok Adalath, Chirala, presided over by the Senior Civil Judge of Chirala, has passed an award on 17.6.2000, in pursuance of an agreement dated 5.6.2000 entered into between the parties, the same is binding on both the parties. In the teeth of the said award, the authorities have no option, but to implement the same. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent approving the correspondentship of the 3^rd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶8

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 21.3.2005. However, if there is any dispute with regard to the management of the school and if the 3^rd respondent is not permitted to manage the affairs of the school, it is always open for her to take appropriate steps as available under the law by filing an execution petition, but she cannot time and again raise the same dispute, which was already settled between the parties in the Lok Adalath, claiming that she must be declared as Correspondent of the school. Further, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not interfere with the functions of the 3^rd respondent as a Manager of the school.

¶9

W.P. No. 5841 of 2004:

¶10

In view of the conclusions arrived at in the above writ petition, this writ petition is also liable to be allowed and accordingly allowed. The order impugned in this writ petition is set aside the official respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for

¶11

approving his candidature as Correspondent of the school, taken into consideration the award passed by the Lok Adalath on 17.6.2000 in O.S. No. 134 of 2000”.

¶12

Aggrieved thereby, Writ Appeal Nos. 827 of 2007 and 834 of 2007 respectively were filed by respondent No.3 herein. The said writ appeals were allowed and the orders under appeal were set aside and the matters were directed to be posted for fresh consideration. That is how, these writ petitions have come up for hearing today.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that Rule 55 of the A.P. (Integrated) Educational Rules, 1966 was not taken into consideration by this Court earlier while disposing of the writ petitions. The said Rule reads as under:

¶14

“Rule 55. Qualification for Manager:- The manager of an elementary school under private management shall be literate and also interested in educational progress. He shall be solvent. He shall not be a whole time public servant of the State or the Union or a Local Body. This condition however, shall not apply to Aided Schools maintained by the Union Government or to schools in Government camps and projects or to elementary or adult schools attached to Government or other institutions under public management, which of necessity have to be under the management of a full time servant of Government or Public Bodies. He shall generally be a resident of the Taluq Block in which the school is located. Provided that in exceptional cases, the Regional Deputy Director of Public Instructions may exempt any named manager from any or all of the conditions mentioned above for any period which may extent up to one year”.

¶15

I am of the considered view that even if Rule 55 of

¶16

the A.P. (Integrated) Educational Rules, 1966 is taken into consideration, it does not alter the situation. Rule 55 contemplates as to literacy, residency etc. of the Manager and it does not speak about the literacy or residency of the Correspondent.

¶17

Under those circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for approving his candidature as Correspondent of the school, taken into consideration the Award passed by the Lok Adalat on 17.6.2000 in O.S. No. 134 of 2000.

¶18

The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶19

JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU.

¶20

Date: 8-11-2010.

¶21

MVB.

Rajupalepu Purnachandra Rao, v. The Director of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajupalepu Purnachandra Rao, v. The Director of School Education

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

Judith Manjula, Vs University of Hyd

K.Ramesh Kumar Reddy Vs The Andhra P ra desh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers

Judith Manjula Vs a.Murali

Y. Hajee Peera, Vs The Superintendent Engineer, Assessments/Apcpdcl

Raja Bahadur Vankata Rama Reddy Educational Society, Hanuman Vs The Superintending Engioneer, (Operations)

P.Purushotham Vs The secretary to Government