Dismissed

Bommakanti Anand Kumar S/o.B.Venkata Ramana Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC7 Sept 2015PIL/239/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning educational reforms under the Right to Education Act, the Court noted the respondents' affidavit which outlined the intended implementation of the CCE system. The Court disposed of the petition by accepting the respondents' affidavit as substantially addressing the grievances and trusted them to implement the undertaking given for the 2015-16 academic year.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed upon acceptance of the respondents' undertaking to implement the CCE system from the academic year 2015-16.

Bommakanti Anand Kumar S/o.B.Venkata Ramana… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

P.I.L.No.239 OF 2014

¶3

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶4

The petitioner, by way of the present public interest litigation, prays for Mandamus declaring proceedings Rc.No.302/E1-1/A & 1/2009 dated 17.07.2014, as illegal, against public interest and unconstitutional. The petitioner consequently prays for a direction to the respondents to implement G.O.MS.No.17, School Education (P.E-Prog.11) Department, dated 14.05.2014.

¶5

Briefly stated, the grievance of petitioner is that through the proceedings dated 17.07.2014, the respondents have for all purposes given a go bye to various reforms introduced through G.O.MS.No.17 dated 14.05.2014 and through an administrative order, the Commissioner of School Education is not competent to act contrary to valid Government Orders issued from time to time. This Court, through order dated 17.08.2015, noted as follows:

¶6

“On 10.08.2015, at the request of learned Government Pleader for Education, the PIL was adjourned to today to enable the 1^st respondent to file counter affidavit. The counter affidavit of Deputy Secretary to Government (School Education) is filed. The counter affidavit dated 06.08.2015 does not answer the query of the Court on the last date of hearing as well as today.

¶7

As requested by learned Government Pleader, two more weeks time from today is granted to enable the Principal Secretary (School Education) to file counter affidavit on the proposal to implement the recommendations of Expert Committee constituted in terms of G.O.Ms.No.17 dated 14-05-2014 and also give an undertaking for implementation from the academic year 2016-2017. Stand over to 31-08-2015.

¶8

Office to communicate this order to the 1^st respondent”.

¶9

The additional counter affidavit of Secretary to Government/ 1^st respondent dated 04.09.2015 is placed on record. The relevant portion in the counter-affidavit reads as follows:

¶10

4. “In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the old system prevailing in the State of Andhra Pradesh has been changed and introduced a new system in implementation of Right to Education Act, 2009 there by the new system called CCE i.e., Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation System (80 marks for written examination and 20 marks for internal assessment) introduced in the year 2010-11. As per the new system marks will be awarded keeping in view the performance of the Child in the formative and summative evaluation and grading system is being followed. The said system was introduced as per Section 29 of RTE Act, 2009. The said system was introduced in undivided Andhra Pradesh during the academic year 2010-2011 for the classes 1 to 8. Though the system was introduced from academic year 2010-11 for classes 1 to 8, awarding of 20 marks for internal evaluation was not followed. So far as for the classes

¶11

9^th and 10^th classes is concerned, the old system i.e., Traditional Examination System (4 unit tests and 4 terminal examinations) has been followed up to date.

¶12

5. It is respectfully submitted that the State of Andhra Pradesh intended to follow the new system of CCE for 10^th class from the academic year 2016-17 i.e., with 11 papers. In the said system 80 marks will be awarded basing on the written examination and 20 marks will be awarded keeping in view the internal assessment of the child by considering the performance in the formative evaluation (4) and summative evaluation (2). As the Expert Committee recommended to implement CCE system for class 10^th from academic year 2016-17, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has intended to introduce CCE system for class 9^th from this academic year i.e., 2015-16.

¶13

6. It is respectfully submitted that the Expert Committee to implement the CCE system for classes 6 to 9 with fullest extent from the academic year 20152016. Accordingly the State of Andhra Pradesh with an intention to implement the recommendations, from this academic year i.e., 2015-16 onwards. The new system of CCE is going to be implemented for 9^th class students from the year 2015-16, so as to enable them to

¶14

understand and make familiar with new system, thereby they can feel easy for the forthcoming 10^th class exam pattern during 2016-17 academic year.”

¶15

Having regard to the categorical statement of 1^st respondent as indicated above, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests the Court to dispose of the writ petition by placing the stand of respondents on record.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of by accepting the additional counter affidavit dated 04.09.2015 of 1^st respondent as substantially addressing the grievance of the petitioner. We hope and trust that all the respondents in the PIL take immediate steps in line with the undertaking given to this Court and all steps are implemented according to the details accepted by us.

¶17

PIL is disposed of, as indicated above.

¶18

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶19

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶20

___________________ S.V.BHATT, J

¶21

Date: 07.09.2015 Lrkm

Bommakanti Anand Kumar S/o.B.Venkata Ramana Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bommakanti Anand Kumar S/o.B.Venkata Ramana Murthy v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

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

Gonugoppula Kishan S/o Narsimlu Vs The.State of Telangana Rep.by its Principal

Gangapatnam Mohan, S/o.Subbaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Muslim Social Welfare Association Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mandava Srinivas, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by the Principal Secretary

Rayalaseema Textilies Employees Association, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs The State of A.P

Mr. Jeediginjala Venkatesh, Vs The State of Telangana

G.Srinivasa Reddy S/o Subba Reddy, Vs The Union of India, Ministry of Finance

Sangam Laxmibai Vidyupeet Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

Kuthadi Srikanth Vs The State of Telangana

P.Gurivi Reddy S/o P.Guruvi Reddy, Vs The Ntr University of Health Sciences

Md. Abdul Hafeez Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Abdul Haq Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh