Allowed

M/s. Siddartha Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary

Telangana HC18 Sept 2014WP/21808/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge Writ Court allowed writ petitions challenging the withdrawal of recognition from educational institutions after a student died due to teaching staff's corporal punishment, holding such action excess of jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders withdrawing recognition of schools were quashed; writ petitions allowed.

M/s. Siddartha Educational Society, rep. by its… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.21860, 21808 & 21853 of 2008

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

As the issue involved in these Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶5

The case of petitioners is that the 1^st petitioner society was registered in the year 1989 under the Societies Registration Act and was running various educational Institutions viz., Degree college, Junior colleges Primary, Upper Primary and High Schools. The petitioner Society was running four schools viz., 1) Siddhartha EM Primary School, Santhi Nagar, Eluru; 2) Siddhartha Quest CBSE School, Vatluru, Eluru; 3) Siddhartha Global Knowledge EM UP School, Powerpet, Eluru; and 4) KPR & JL Siddhartha EM & TM High School, Eluru. Out of above institutions, institution Nos.1,3 and 4 are recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and whereas institution No.2 is recognized by Central Board of Secondary Education, Government of India. However, all the institutions are under the management of 1^st petitioner society. While so, a news item was punished on 19.09.2008 with regard to the death of one student, by name, P. Durga Pavan, who was studying 7^th class in Siddartha Quest School (CBSE syllabus) Eluru. Basing on the said news item, 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice on 19.09.2008 to the schools at S.No.1,3 and 4 to submit their explanation on or before 22.09.2008, as to why the recognition granted to the school should

¶6

not be withdrawn. For which, the school submitted an explanation on the same date stating that there is no negligence on the part of the management with regard to the incident that occurred in the school premises i.e., in Siddhartha Quest School and they have nothing to do with the said incident. However, the 2^nd respondent authority had issued proceedings vide Rc.No.4272/A1/2008, dated 23.09.2008 withdrawing the recognition/permission to the 2^nd petitioner school, which is run by the 1^st petitioner society. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions are filed.

¶7

A counter-affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent stating that on publication of news item on 19.09.2008, the District Educational Officer, West Godavari, Eluru and the Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada have visited the school on 19.09.2008 and observed that the student, by name, P. Durga Pavan died on 18.9.2008 at about 4.45p.m., and he belongs to Siddhartha Quest School (CBSE Syllabus) Eluru. It was alleged that a teacher, by name, Rajesh hit the boy when the boy had gone out to purchase samosa cake while the students were waiting for school bus, and immediately the boy fell down and he was shifted to Ravindra Hospital, N.R.Pet, Eluru and the doctor opined that the boy was dead. In those circumstances, a notice was issued to the petitioners on 19.09.2008 to submit their explanation. The petitioners submitted their explanation, and as the said explanation was not satisfactory, impugned proceedings were issued in respect of the death of the student. A criminal case in Crime No.94 of 2008 was also filed under Section 302 IPC and were pending in the III Town police station, West Godavari District. The counter narrates the statements made by the father of the petitioner and enquiry done by the respondents.

¶8

A perusal of the order dated 23.9.2008 discloses that the order was passed under Rule 10 (10) of G.O.Ms.No.1 Education, 1986, dated 01.01.1994.

¶9

Rule 10 (10) of A.P. Educational Institutions Rules 1993:

¶10

(10) that the National Policy of Education, 1986 envisages exclusion of corporal punishments to children in Schools. Therefore, the educational agency and the Headmaster/Principal of the School shall ensure that the students are not subject to corporal punishments of any nature under any circumstances and the staff enforcing such punishments against the students shall be subject to suitable disciplinary action.

¶11

A reading of the above rule makes it clear that in case of violation of the said rule, the staff involved in the violation shall be subject to disciplinary action.

¶12

Learned Government Pleader also drawn attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 17 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009, which is also to the same effect.

¶13

Thus, the rules make it clear that in case of violation of rule, necessary action should be taken against those staff involved in the incident.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in respect of the incident, a crime was registered and the teacher, Rajesh was convicted in the criminal case and he was removed from service also.

¶15

In these circumstances, the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned orders withdrawing the recognition in view of the incident involving the death of a student due to the beating by a teacher on 18.9.2008 is in excess of jurisdiction and is liable to be

¶16

quashed. Therefore, the impugned orders are hereby quashed. In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶17

______________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J. Date : 18-09-2014 Gvl

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.21065 of 2006

¶20

Date : 18-09-2014

¶21

Gvl

M/s. Siddartha Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Siddartha Educational Society, rep. by its Secretary v. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary

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

Abdul Samand Khan Vs MunicipalCorporation of Hyderabad, rep.by its

Devineni Radha Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K. Ramapullam Raju Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

N. Farid Basha Vs The Government of India, rep. by its Secretary

Tangudu Makayya Vs The Joint Collector (Civil Supplies Wing)

Gulam Mohamood S/o Gulam Dastigir, Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Mandal Revenue