Allowed

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary School, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary

Telangana HC1 Feb 2016PIL/225/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a suo motu PIL regarding deficiencies in schools in Mahabubnagar District. It allowed the State to construct barred/mesh wire fencing instead of a compound wall and directed maintenance of washrooms and appointment of permanent teachers.

What did the court decide?

Respondents allowed to construct barred/mesh wire fencing instead of compound wall; directed to maintain washrooms and appoint sweepers and permanent teachers.

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary… — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

P.I.L No. 225 OF 2015

¶5

01.02.2016

¶6

Between: Students of Boyyalagudem, Upper Primary School, Mahabubnagar, Telangana State, and other school students in Mahabubnagar District, Telangana State.

¶7

… Petitioners

¶8

And State of Telangana, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶11

AND

¶12

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶13

P.I.L No. 225 OF 2015

¶14

PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶15

This suo motu PIL was taken up on the basis of letters written by students from Mahabubnagar District.

¶16

We issued certain directions from time to time. We also appointed Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud as Amicus Curiae to visit the schools and submit report to this Court. Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud has taken trouble in visiting all the schools in eight villages in Ghattu and Ieeza Mandals of Mahabubnagar District and submitted report pointing out several deficiencies in respect of wash rooms, appointment of teachers, appointment of sweepers, repairs of class rooms, construction of compound wall etc.

¶17

On one occasion, we had directed learned Government Pleader to ask the concerned Departments to take immediate action for complying all the deficiencies pointed out by the Amicus Curiae.

¶18

Learned Government Pleader has accordingly filed affidavit dated 30.01.2016 and placed on record the Action Taken Report. We have perused the same.

¶19

It is not in dispute that except construction of compound wall, the Government has taken steps/action to comply other deficiencies. We accept the Action Taken Report. Insofar as construction of compound wall is concerned, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, learned Government Pleader, submits that instead of constructing compound wall, the concerned Department may be allowed to construct barred wire fencing to prevent entry of dogs, pigs etc., in school premises.

¶20

In view thereof, we dispose of the PIL, allowing the respondents to construct barred/mesh wire fencing instead of compound wall. We hope and trust that the respondents shall also maintain wash rooms in all the schools properly and shall take steps to appoint sweepers before the end of academic year. We also hope that the respondents shall take steps to appoint permanent teachers in all the schools wherever they have made temporary arrangements.

¶21

We also place on record a word of appreciation for the services rendered by Sri M. Vijay Kumar Goud, Amicus Curiae.

¶22

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶23

S.V. BHATT, J

¶24

Date: 01.02.2016

¶25

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary School, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Students of Boyyalagudem. Upper Primary School, v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G Sudharshan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S. a. Sampath Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

Pamulapati Krishna Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary

M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Pragathi Pariyavarana Parirakshna Samithi, Vs Union of India

D.v.R.Raju, S/o Late Sri D.Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd Abdul Qader , Shafath Vs The Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally, Hyderabad.

Chetupally Muralidhar Vs The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary

N.Nagaiah Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Y.Rajagopal Vs The State of Andha Paradesh Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Vuppaia Subbarao , Vs The State of A.P.

The Khadher Memorial Education Society, Vs Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Jntu)

T.Jeevan Reddy s/o. Ramachandra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Vasantha Lakshmi Charitable Trust and Research Centre, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary