Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Secretary To Government Education ... vs Society For St. Ann'S Mehdipatnam, ... on 25 March, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR1991AP311, 1991(2)ALT20, AIR 1991 ANDHRA PRADESH 311, (1991) 2 ANDH LT 20
ORDER Jagannadha Rao, J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1000 of 1990 dated 22-2-1991. The said order was modified by further order dated 11-3-1991. The appellants before us are the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Director of School Education, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent is the writ petitioner viz., the Society for St. Ann's. Mchdipatnam. Hyderabad and the second respondent is the Registrar of Osrnania University. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent society for the issue of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents (the Secretary to Government, Education Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the Director of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh) in not granting permission to star! the College of Education to the petitioner Society as being illegal, and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to grant permission to the society for starting the College of Education at Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad, during the academic year 1991-92. By virtue of the supplementary order dated 11-3-1991 above referred to, the writ petitioner was permitted to amend the academic year as 1991 rather than 1991-92.
2. In the ensuing discussion we will refer to the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner-Society is 125 years old and has been running several educational institutions all over the State of Andhra Pradesh and one school in Madras city. The total number of schools run by it are fifty. The media in the schools are Telugu and English. In Hyderabad city, the Society has a Girl's High School at Vijayanagar colony having a strength of more than 3,000 students and about 100 teachers. At B.H.E.L. there are more than 4,500 students in the institution called Jyothi Vidyalaya and there are 150 staff members. The ether schools are located in rural areas and in District Headquarters. The petitioner-Society needs a large number of teachers for being employed in its own institutions and it also intends to produce more B.Ed. students who can seek employment elsewhere. The St. Ann's Women's College has courses at Intermediate and Degree level. The College has a strength of about 3000 students and further every year more than 500 students take their Degrees in Science, Arts and Commerce. This Institution is nine years old, and it has several other research oriented courses. It is stated that every year a number of students secured highest ranks in each examination. The college is said to have a modern building having carpet area of two lakhs square feet. It is stated that they have well equipped laboratoy, library, computer centre and adequate furniture, besides other facilities like indoor games, outdoor games, Auditorium and a large canteen. The petitioner also states that it has got an independent building constructed for housing a B.Ed. College and the total plinth area thereof is 45,000 square feet. It is stated that the petitioner-Society purchased a large number of books and Labequipment for the new B.Ed. College. The list of books, furniture and equipment is available. The society lays more stress on Women's education and wants to produce a larger number of Women B.Eds. It is stated that the society has more than Rs. 10 lakhs reserved fund. It is states that the residents of Mehdipatnam and adjoining localities have requested the Society to start the College of Education.
3. The writ petitioner society has submitted an application on 18-7-1988 to the Competent authority for permission to start College of Education. The Director of School Education conducted inspection and a team from Osmania University also conducted inspection. It is stated that the feasibility reports are in favour of the writ petitioner society for opening the B.Ed. College. Inasmuch as the matter was kept pending for a long time, the Society initially filed Writ Petition No. 12874 of 1989 seeking a direction against the respondents in the writ petition for grant of permission to start the B.Ed. College. By order dated 19-9-1989, tbe writ petition was partly allowed directing the respondents to consider the case of the society for grant of permission. It is stated that inspite of the said direction, the respondents did not move in the matter. Therefore, the society again filed a representation on 19-12-1990 to the Chief Minister. The society was informed that the policy of the Government was not to accord permission for starting B.Ed. Colleges. The society states that such a policy is both arbitrary and without any substance. It is stated that such a policy could not be thrust upon the society when they had applied for a permission way back in July, 1988. It is stated that the respondents are estopped from invoking any fresh policy particularly when the writ petitioner has incurred substantial expenditure for the building and equipment. It is stated that the unemployment factor among the trained graduates could never be a valid criterion. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment in Writ Petition No. 12558 of 1990 dated 27-11-1990 by which the writ petitioner was permitted to start another Degree College at Narasaraopet in Guntur District. The petitioner-Society stated that the last date for admission of B.Ed, candidates is fixed as 3-2-1991 and that therefore writ of mandamus should be issued declaring that the inaction on the part of the respondents is bad and directing the respondents to grant permission.
4. A counter was filed in the writ petition by the Assistant Secretary to the Government stating that the Director of School Education in his inspection report dated 11-10-1989 stated that the management has not deposited the Corpus fund of Rs. 4.5 lakhs in the joint account of management and the Director that it has not provided the play ground of 10 acres, laboratory and A. V. Equipment, Library and adequate furniture. It is also stated that in Hyderabad and Secunderabad, there are the following B.Ed. Colleges, viz., The Government College of Education, Hyderabad; The College of Education, Osmania University; and several private aided colleges viz., The A.M.S. College of Education for women, Hyderabad; St. Ann's College of Education, Secunderabad; N.S.R. College of Education, Hyderabad and the following private Un-aided colleges, viz., Shadan College of Education, Khairatabad, St. Alphonsa College of Education, Ameer-pret and Parteeya Mahavidyalaya, Dilshuk-nagar, Hyderabad. It is stated that the graduates coming from St. Ann's College can as well pursue their B.Ed. studies in the above said colleges. It is then stated that the policy of the Government is not to permit any new B.Ed. Colleges for the academic year 1990-91. In Hyderabad and Secunderabad there are already three colleges of education exclusively intended for women and therefore there is no need for any new college. It is also stated that the petitioner-society has to obtain minority certificate from the competent authority as per G.O. Ms. No. 526 Education dated 21-12-1988. It is also stated that the Director of School Education caused inspection by the D.E.O. Hyderabad and it is reported that the Corpus fund of Rs. 4.5 lakhs has not been deposited. The policy of the Government on B.Ed. Colleges is one of consolidation of the existing colleges and no new colleges have, it is stated, been permitted from 1988-1989 to 1990. The said policy is reviewed in August, 1990 and it is said that the policy is not to permit new colleges for academic year 1990-91. It is said that permission for fresh colleges was not given from 1988 till 1991. At present 47 Colleges of Education duly permitted by the Government are functioning. They turn out 7495 candidates every year and at the end of December, 1989, there are 37,180 B.Ed, graduates on the live register of employment exchanges. This is equal to 5 times the actual intake capacity of B.Eds. The policy of the Government is in keeping with the idea that unemployment should not be increased. There is no need for opening new colleges in view of S. 20 of A.P. Education Act (Act No. 1 of 1982).
An additional affidavit was filed in the writ petition by the society stating that while appointing lecturers, the society has a representative of the Osmania University in Selection Committee, and merit alone is the criterion while selecting lecturers. 80% of the lecturers do not belong to Christian community though the institution is a minority institution. The degree college has got 70 staff members and several teachers hold Doctorate and M. Phil degrees. The U.G.C. and the Osmania University have always praised the teachers of the society for good work. The society pays decent salaries as per scales.
5. On the basis of the above, the learned single Judge observed that in spite of the direction in W.P. No. 12874/89 dated 19-8-1989 directing the Government to consider and dispose of society's application dated 1-8-1988 nothing has been done by the Government. The society gave a final representation on 9-12-1990 to the Chief Minister and then moved this Court. The learned Judge observed that the non-fulfilment of any conditions is not brought to the notice of the society. While the matter was being heard before the learned Judge, the society placed before the Court the fixed deposit for Rs. 4.5 lakhs. He observed that the society cannot be accused of non-fulfilment of condition when the Government was inactive for several years and referred to the non-fulfilment of conditions for the first time only in the counter-affidavit. It is also stated that direction in W.P. No. 12558/90 dated 27-11-1990 giving time for compliance with the conditions is a reasonable one. After referring to the Division Bench decision of this Court in Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Government of A.P., it was stated that under S. 20(3)(a) the requirement of the "locality" is to be considered rather than the over-all requirement in the State. On that basis the decision of the Supreme Court in. State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha, was distinguished. The learned Judge followed the observations of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 12558/90 that the need of the locality must be looked into. He then stated that there is no college of education in and around Mehdipatnam area in Hyderabad City where the society proposed to start the college. The Government has not planned to start any college in that area. The said area is a sufficiently big one with large population and number of colleges. It is a separate area though within Hyderabad Minicipality. The fact that there are 8 colleges in Hyderabad is not a ground to refuse permission. Adverting to S. 20 of the Act, the learned Judge observed that Mehdipatnam area is having substantial population and number of educational institutions without B.Ed. College. The proposed college has obtained affiliation from the Osmania University. The Director of School Education has submitted a feasibility report. If the policy of the Government is not to start new colleges for education, the Government should not have directed inspection. On these grounds, the learned Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to grant permission for the society to start a college of education (B.Ed.) for the academic year 1991-92. The respondents are to pass orders to this effect within one month from the date of receipt of the order. If there are any inadequacies or absence of facilities they could be directed to be provided in reasonable time. As stated earlier, the said order was modified by a supplementary order dated 11-3-1991 directing that permission to be granted for the academic year 1990-91. It is against this order that the writ appeal is preferred by the Secretary for Education and the Director of School Education.
6. In this appeal, it is contended for the appellants by Smt. Mechalunare, the learned Govt. Pleader that this Court cannot question the policy of the Government referred to above and that in any event it cannot grant & writ of Mandamus directing that permission should be granted to the society. It is also pointed out that the society had not complied with several conditions as mentioned in the inspection report of the Director. In addition it is argued that the society has not obtained certificate from the competent authority to be treated as a minority institution as per G.O.Ms. No. 526 Education dated 21-12-1988. During the course of this appeal, the appellants have filed a further counter-affidavit of the Principal Secretary of Education on 21-3-1991 placing certain further facts in accordance with our observations during the course of arguments. The policy decision taken by the Cabinet is referred to therein and it is further stated that the said policy has been reviewed by the Government on 6-8-1990 and the new policy is also set out. It is also stated that no new College of Education has been permitted to be opened from the year 1988 to 1990 and that the following four colleges have been permitted during 1988-89 for the reason that the Osmania University has already given affiliation :
(1) Shadan College, Hyderabad.
(2) Anwar-ul-uloom College of Education, Hyderabad.
(3) Alphonsa College of Education, Hyderabad. (4) Pathima College of Education, Warangal.
A statement of the position of unemployed B.Ed. candidates in the employment exchange is filed. Another statement as to the member of schools and their requirement is filed. It is pointed out that the number of students who appeared for B.Ed. for 1990 is 93,842 and the number of students who passed B.Ed. in the common entrance test is 89, 149. The percentage of passes is 95%. The number of Education Colleges is 8 and and their strength is 900. The number of candidates who applied for Osmania University and Kakatiya University is 26,079. Out of this, the number of girl students is 9,240 and boy students is 16,839. There are 1220 men candidates as on 31-12-1990 in Hyderabad city and 2192 women candidates on the live registers of the employment exchange. With regard to Ranga Reddy District, the figures are 95 men candidates and 67 women candidates.
7. A further affidavit is filed by the society dated 12-3-1991 stating that after the writ petition was allowed, a request was sent to the Dean, Faculty of Education, Osmania University to depute Faculty experts for appointment of staff and the interviews were to commence on 12-3-1991. Another counter-affidavit was filed on 25-3-1991 by the society stating that the policy of the Government does not show that the unemployment of trained graduates was the basis of such policy. Adverting to the other institutions for which permission was granted after 1988, it is stated that mere grant of affiliation by the University could not be the only reason for granting permission to those colleges. In fact, one college was granted permission even before affiliation. This, it is said, amounted to clear discrimination. There is no need to keep this society's application pending from July, 1988 despite directions of the High Court. The statistics provided by the Government themselves would show that there was need for more colleges which would train more meritorious students. The cut-off marks given in the table filed by the Government is incorrect as candidates of higher marks sought admission in the writ petitioner's institution. The mere registration of the candidates on the live register, it is said, is not indicative of unemployment. They might have been self-employed or been employed by private organisations. Reference is made to a study conducted by the Director General of Employment and Training, Government of India, with the help of Mr. Raghava Rao, Joint Director. It revealed that 40 to 50 per cent of those enrolled with the employment exchanges are either Self-employed or otherwise employed in private organisations. The Government does not have any data as to how many of these 37,000 trained B.Ed, graduates, are persons who are neither self-employed nor privately employed. It is said that there is a dearth of trained teachers of mathematics and science among women as pointed out by Professor Rama Murthy Committee. Reser-vation of 30% posts for women would be without any benefit if B.Ed. Colleges for women are not permitted.
8. We shall deal with these contentions one by one. First we shall advert to S. 20(1) of the A.P. Education Act, 1982.
9. Under Section 20 of the Act, no private institution shall be established except in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the Rules made thereunder. Sub-Cl.(3) of S. 20 states that while granting permission the authority shall have due legard to the following matters viz., (a) that there is need for providing educational facilities to the people in the locality; (b) that there is adequate financial provision for continued and efficient maintenance of the institution as prescribed by the competent authority; (c) that the institution is proposed to be located in sanitary and healthy surroundings; (d) that the site for building, play-ground and garden proposed to be provided and the building in which the institution is propsed to be used; conform to the rules prescribed therefor, and (e) that the teaching staff qualified according to rules made by the Government in this behalf is appointed; and (f) that the application satisfies the requirement laid down by the Act and the Rules and other orders.
10. In the present case, the society made an application on 1-8-1988 and as the same was not disposed of they obtained a direction in W.P. No. 12558/90 that their application should be considered. There was no action on the part of the respondents. The society gave a final representation to the Chief Minister on 9-12-1990 and as there was again no action, they filed the present writ petition.
11. It is unfortunate that in spite of a direction from this Court the Government did not proceed to pass any orders. Whenever an application for permission is made under S. 20 it is the bounden duty of the Government io dispose it of within reasonable time. Surely they cannot keep quiet for 21/2 years in spite of a later direction from this Court.
Further, if any further conditions had to be complied with by the applicant as revealed from the inspections, it was the bounden duty of the Government to keep the applicant informed immediately rather than keep the reports in cold-storage and try to use them against the applicant when it approached this Court. But unfortunately that is what happened in the present case. If only the applicant was informed soon after the inspection about the further conditions to be complied with, the applicant would have certainly tried to comply with them in accordance with the Act and Rules or other orders.
12. But merely because of inaction on the part of the Government in this behalf, this Court cannot, while dealing with a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, go into the merits and hold that this is a fit case for granting permission and issue a mandamus to grant permission. The question whether permission should or should not be granted is a matter within the purview of the competent authority. The said authority is expected to conduct an enquiry. In case it refuses permission, it is bound to pass a reasoned order. Further, in case some of the conditions for grant of permission under S. 20 have not been complied with, the competent authority cannot straight away reject the application but must grant time for compliance with conditions. In fact, an institution may not be in a position to comply with some of the conditions unless conditional permission is initially granted. Otherwise, it stands the risk of first spending huge sums of money for complying with conditions and the permission being ullimately refused on other grounds. In fact, this is what exactly is stated in the National Policy on Education, 1986 as stated below. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Judge could not have directed permission to be granted under S. 20 straightaway. Further, if the authorities while refusing the permission have taken extraneous factors into consideration or have not considered the relevant factors or circumstances placed before them or if they acted in violation of the provisions of the Act and rules, it woud be open to this Court to quash the said order and the Court has normally to send back the matter for fresh decision in the light of its orders. It is not open to this Court normally to direct permission to be granted. We do not think that there is anything in the decision of Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Government of A.P., to the contrary or which permits a direction to grant permission to be straight-away issued. The learned Judge therefore erred in issuinga writ of mandamus directing grant of permission.
13. Coming to the question of policy of the Government, it has, no doubt, been laid down by the Supreme Court in two decisions viz., State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha, that the State policy in the matters giving permission to start educational institutions cannot be interfered with by the Court so long as fundamental rights and principles of natural justice have not been violated. It has also been laid down that the orders of educational authority refusing to grant permission to start educational institutions should not be struck down by the High Court without considering the reasons given by such authorities. It is again laid down in V. S. Mahasangh v. State of Maharashtra, that the order of the Government based on educational policy to curb unemployment could not be held to be invalid.
14. In the present case, the original policy of the Government as stated in the additional counter in writ appeal, was as follows :
"Our policy is one of consolidation. The existing institutions must fulfil conditions and come up to the standards in accordance with the policy of the Government or they must close down. As far as new institutions are concerned, only those institutions which fulfil all the requisite conditions in advance may be considered for according permission."
It is stated that the said policy was reviewed on 6-8-1990 and now the existing policy is as follows :
"(a) no new colleges of education could be permitted to be started in the academic year 1990-91; and
(b) sub-standard colleges of education which have not fulfilled the conditions could not be permitted to admit students in the current academic year."
15. Section 20(1) states that the requirement of the 'locality' is to he considered along with the other circumstances mentioned therein. In fact in Andhra Kesari Education Society v. Government of A. P., above referred to, it has been clearly laid down by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Madhava Reddy, C.J. and Sardar Ali Khan, J. that when the legislative policy in S.20(3)(a) states that the requirement of the locality is the criterion, the Government cannot take a decision contrary to the legislative policy. The learned Judges observed that there may be thousand educated unemployed but so long as large number of illiterate persons seek to educate themselves and apply for admission into educational institutions and when educational institutions are proposed to be started by persons interested in making the Nation more educated and when they are prepared to provide facilities envisaged by the statute, the State cannot reject permission. It cannot deny educational facilities to the people of the locality. When the applicants are able to provide the requisite facilities as envisaged by the Act and sufficient number of students are seeking admission, the Government is legally bound to grant permission to start such educational institutions. As long as there is need for educational institutions in the 'locality', any refusal on grounds of executive policy, contrary to legislative policy or fundamental rights of the citizens to educate themselves, would, in our opinion, be bad. While citizens cannot insist upon Government to provide educational facilities at the cost of the State and the State may very well be within its bounds in not starting schools, colleges and educational institutions, the State cannot deny the right of the citizen to educate themselves and to establish such institutions.
16. We are of the view that para (a) of the Educational Policy dated 6-8-1990 referred to in the counter stating that no new college of education should be permitted to be started for the academic year 1990-91 runs contrary to the legislative policy set out in S. 20(3)(a) and also to the fundamental rights of the petitioner as stated in the above said judgment. In our view, the legislative policy that it is the need of the 'locality' that is relevant cannot be given a go-by under the guise of a general executive policy. It is true as stated in State of Maharashtra v. Lok Shikshan Sanstha, that this Court cannot question the policy of the Government. But when the policy in a particular field is governed by statute, the executive policy cannot be inconsistent therewith or run contrary to the legislative policy. While, the State can however fill-up any missing links, it cannot lay down a policy contrary to the said legislative policy. Nor can the executive policy offend fundamental rights.
17. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the general statement in the revised policy dated 6-8-1990 that no new Colleges of Education should be started in 1990-91, should be read-down consistent with the legislative policy in S.20(3)(a) and also consistent with the fundamental rights of the society. The above said executive policy must, in our view, be read down as being subordinate to the legislature policy in S. 20(1) and that it is the need of the locality that is important rather than the overall needs of the State as a whole.
18. It is in this context that the Note submitted to the Cabinet by Sri R. V. Vaidyanatha Aiyar, the then Secretary, Education, becomes material. That has been placed before us on our direction. That is a Note submitted before the policy decision of 6-8-1990 was taken. From a close reading of the Note, it is revealed to us that it is not stated that no new Colleges of Education should at all be started for the academic year 1990-91. The Note merely refers to the National Policy of Education, 1986 and states that the Central Government has pointed out that there are a large number of educational institutions which are sub-standard. It is stated that the State Government is to take steps to close them down. So far as new educational institutions are concerned, it is stated that, in keeping with the National Policy of Education of 1986, "if a decision is taken to permit new educational institutions, it will be desirable to ensure that admissions are allowed only after the fulfilment of the conditions and provision of infrastructure and other facilities. In the first instance Government may issue a letter of intent indicating its willingness to give permission to the institution. This letter of intent would spell out all the conditions which should be fulfilled. It is only after fulfilment of conditions that the Government's approval will be given and institutions will be allowed to make admissions."
It is stated further that the minimum infrastructure is in respect of land, building, playground, laboratory, library etc. as spelled out in Annexure III. Every college should fulfil those conditions before it could make admissions. A reference is also made to persons who are in the live register of employment exchange. It is stated in the negative, that "from the manpower angle, the existing intake does not seem to be inadequate". Reference is then made to the observations of the Government of India that a bulk of the unemployed registered candidates are corning out of sub-standard institutions which have not been closed down. In conclusion, it is stated in para 10 of the Note that there is a shortage of Maths-B.Eds. as also in Physical Sciences so far as women are concerned. In order to ensure proper mix up, it has been stipulated that admissions of every B.Ed. College should be in the ratio 50% Maths and Physical Sciences, 30% Biological Sciences and 20% Social studies. It is important to note the significant remark that this stipulation in respect of Maths and Physical Sciences, particularly among women, is not being fulfilled. One way to ensure availability for Maths and Physical Science trained graduates, particularly women, it is said, would be to exempt Maths and Physical Sciences candidates from the requirement of getting minimum marks at the entrance test. It is stated that the Convener, CET, may allot candidates belonging to Maths and Physical Sciences who failed to get minimum marks at the common entrance test for admission into B.Ed. courses, to the extent of shortage of candidates.
19. From the reading of the above said Note, we are unable to find any observation in the Note-that there is no need at all to start new B.Ed. Colleges in the State as a whole or in any particular locality, and particularly in Maths and Physical Science, if not in other subjects, for women. Another important factor is to note that the number of live candidates on the employment-exchange may not fully reflect the unemployment position. Some may be self-employed or employed in private employment. Yet another important circumstance is that it is necessary to find out whether all of them who are not employed are first or second class candidates or third class candidates who may not be good for employment in many institutions. To simply say that there are thousands of unemployed B.Ed. candidates and therefore no new institutions could be started does not obviously take into account the above circumstances. The National Education Policy, 1986 has itself stated that most of the unemployed B.Eds. are from Sub-standard institutions which have not yet been closed down. In fact, in our view, if new B.Ed. Colleges are not to be started at all, it will become necessary to employ the unemployed B.Eds. who have been produced by the substandard institutions referred to in the National Education Policy. Such a course would be highly detrimental to public interest. These are all the matters which the competent authority has to bear in mind, while considering the applications for grant of permission. Applications have also to be considered in the light of conditions satisfied by other institutions who have since been granted permission.
20. We are, therefore, of the view that the revised policy in Cl. (a) above referred to has to be read down as stated above, consistent with S. 20(3)(a) and the provisions of the Constitution and has to be viewed in the context of the contents of the office-Note placed before the Committee which took the said policy-decision and also in the context of the various relevant circumstances mentioned above.
21. However, as stated earlier, it is not open to this Court to go into the merits of the case as to the needs in any particular locality. It is for the competent authority to take the decision having regard to the provisions of the Act and the rules and to the other relevant factors mentioned above. We are, therefore, of the view that the direction given by the learned single Judge directing the authorities to grant permission to the petitioner for the academic year 1990-91 should be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the Principal Secretary, Education, for a decision in accordance with law and in the light of the above legal principles.
22. We would, however, like to place on record the concession made by the learned Advocate for the Society that so far as the academic year 1990-91 is concerned, the society, with a view to save time, will be treated as a non-minority institution and the application made by it under S. 20 will be treated as such. The society shall be treated as willing to abide by conditions V and VI appended to the form. The respondent will therefore proceed on the basis that the society is agreeable for a nominee of the Government and also a nominee of the University to be included in the management for running the institution till such time as the society is able to get the certificate to be treated as a minority institution under G.O. Ms. No. 526 dated 21-12-1988. Likewise, the society will be treated as agreeing to the condition that it will follow the rules issued by the Government from time to time in regard to reservation for S.Cs., S.Ts., and B.Cs. in regard to admission and also appointment of staff, till they obtain minority certificate as stated above.
23. Pending the writ appeal the society has applied to the competent authority viz., The Director of School Education. It was pointed out that the society has to file the application in triplicate and the same has been informed to the Society. It will be for the society to conform to those conditions.
24. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed and the order of the learned single Judge is set aside and the respondents are directed to dispose of the apriciation of the petitioner for grant of permission under Sec. 20 of the A. P. Educational Act and also for grant of permission under the G. O. Ms. No. 526 dated 21-12-1988 as expeditiously as possible keeping in mind that the relief is being asked for by the petitioner-society for the academic year 1990-91. The respondent will tentatively fix a date in the first week of April, 1991 for giving a hearing to the petitioner society and shall dispose of the application on or before the 15th of April, 1991. We are fixing these dates by the consent of the parties with a view to see that the society does not lose time, to start the institution for the academic year 1990-91. No order as to costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 500/-.
25. Appeal allowed.