Dismissed

The Convention of the Bapitist Chjurches of the Northern Cir v. The District Educational Officer

Telangana HC19 Sept 2014WP/28298/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of five writ petitions challenging administrative appointments in unaided educational institutions. Relying on a prior decision, the court held that internal disputes over control or rival claims for administration are not suitable for writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed the parties to approach the competent civil court.

What did the court decide?

Parties directed to approach the competent civil court for adjudication of disputes regarding nominations or appointments.

The Convention of the Bapitist Chjurches of the… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 28298 of 2007; 380 and 19980 of 2008; 23064 and 25737 of 2009; and 6187 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

All these Writ Petitions are being disposed of together with the consent of the learned Counsel for the petitioners as the issue involved in all the cases is the same.

¶5

W.P.No.28298 of 2007:

¶6

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No.18/B1-2/2002 dated 23.11.2007 as violative of Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act.

¶7

The order dated 23.11.2007 was passed accepting the request of the fifth respondent and recognizing him as Convener, Educational Committee of CBCNC and communicating the said decision to the concerned District Educational Officers and Regional Joint Directors of School Education. The petitioner also claims to be the Convener of the Education Committee.

¶8

W.P.No.380 of 2008:

¶9

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the second respondent in Rc.No.18/B1-2/2002 dated 23.11.2007 as violative of Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act.

¶10

The order dated 23.11.2007 was passed accepting the request of the twelfth respondent and recognizing him as Convener, Educational Committee of CBCNC and communicating the said decision to the concerned District Educational Officers and Regional Joint Directors of School Education. The petitioner also claims to be the Convener of the Education Committee.

¶11

W.P.No.19980 of 2008:

¶12

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.No.18/B1-2/2002 dated 23.11.2007 as violative of Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act.

¶13

The order dated 23.11.2007 was passed accepting the request of the eighteenth respondent and recognizing him as Convener, Educational Committee of CBCNC and communicating the said decision to the concerned District Educational Officers and Regional Joint Directors of School Education. The petitioner also claims to be the Convener of the Education Committee.

¶14

W.P.No.23064 of 2009:

¶15

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the first respondent in Rc.No.25/C2/2005 dated 09.08.2009 under which the list of correspondence submitted by the petitioner was rejected and the list of correspondence submitted by respondent Nos.5 and 6 was approved. W.P.No.25737 of 2009:

¶16

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc.No.25/C2/2005 dated 09.08.2009 in approving the appointments of respondent Nos.7 to 9 as correspondents to various schools of CBCNC, Vuyyuru and Guduru Mandal in Krishna District.

¶17

W.P.No.6187 of 2010:

¶18

This Writ Petition was filed challenging the proceedings of the fourteenth respondent in Rc.No.126-C5/09 dated 11.01.2010 appointing the twentieth respondent as Correspondent of CBM Jubilee Girls High School, Kakinada.

¶19

CBCNC is a registered society and running several educational institutions and in respect of those educational institutions rival groups are claiming control.

¶20

In identical circumstances, this Court in W.P.No.19769 of 2008 disposed of the Writ Petition on 11.12.2012 with the following

¶21

observations:

¶22

“4. Hardly there exits any unanimity of opinion as regards the functioning of any Managing Committee or the competence of individuals, who administer the institutions. In this scenario, it is too difficult for this Court to express an opinion in a writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case, there are several disputes among various persons, claiming rights of administration or management of the Institutions, or the Societies, they have to approach the competent Civil Court for adjudication. If, on the other hand, the approval of the Government is needed for any steps taken by the Society or its rivals, the concerned authorities have to examine the matter, with reference to the relevant provisions of law. In case any enquiry is pending, the final steps can be taken only after conclusion thereof and passing of final orders by the competent authority.

¶23

5. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that the petitioner on the one hand and his rival party on the other, feel that there exist any disputes among them, it shall be open to them to approach the competent civil Court. Similarly, if they are of the view that the nomination or appointment of an individual as Secretary / Correspondent, to be approved by the 1st respondent or any other authority of the Government, they shall await the ongoing enquiry and a final decision that may be taken by the Government in this regard. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

6. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition shall also stand disposed of.”

¶25

In view of the same, accepting the view of my learned brother these Writ Petitions are also disposed of directing the parties to approach the competent civil Court if there is any grievance with regard to the recommendation of persons by the competent authority. The said decision cannot be decided in a proceeding filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Giving such liberty, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 19.09.2014 vs

The Convention of the Bapitist Chjurches of the Northern Cir v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Convention of the Bapitist Chjurches of the Northern Cir v. The District Educational Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

K.Mala Obulamma, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Today Tappers Cooperative Society, Khammam, Vs Government of a.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary

Thoutam Sudhaker Vs Nandikota Malla Reddy