Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M. Isaiah vs The State Of A.P. on 1 September, 2021
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
Writ Petition No. 3289 of 2018
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 3 and 4 in not recognizing the petitioner as the Correspondent of Lutheran High School, Jampet, Rajahmundry on the pretext that the District Collector has not taken note of the change in Correspondent and refusing to receive pay bills presented by the petitioner in respect of the staff of the school, as illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') and consequently to direct the respondents to recognize the petitioner as the Correspondent of Lutheran High School, Jampet, Rajahmundry and honour the pay bills presented by him.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Correspondent with effect from 01.10.2017 as per the resolutions of the Management dated 10.11.2017 and 11.11.2017 passed by the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church, Guntur and the copy of the resolutions were marked to the District Educational Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari District. On 13.10.2017 by proceedings dated 13.10.2017 of the Moderator - Bishop, AEL Church and the Manager of AELC Educational Institutions, Guntur, Mr. B.Rajasekar, Correspondent, Lutheran High School, Jampet, 2 Rajahmundry, whose term was expired on 31.07.2017, was directed to handover the charge to the petitioner - Mr.Isaiah. The 5th respondent, Mr.B.Rajasekhar, questioning his termination filed the Writ Petition No.17268 of 2018 wherein the Management was also made a party-respondent and notices were served on them. The petitioner approached the 2nd respondent - Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada and the District Educational Officer, Kakinada to note the change of correspondentship of the Lutheran High School at Jampet, Rajahmundry in the prescribed proforma with necessary enclosures and checklist. But, the same is not acted upon. By executive instructions issued in Circular Rc.No.4271/B4- 2/2004 dated 27.10.2004, the 2nd respondent authorized the District Collector to take note of the change of the person functioning as a correspondent of the school instead of the competent authority, which is contrary to the rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 and the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act. Due to non-noting of the changes in the correspondentship of the school, the bills submitted by the petitioner to pay the salaries to the staff of the school are not being cleared and the petitioner is not being recognized by the authorities of the Education department in all aspects, thereby the petitioner is not able to function as a Correspondent of the school effectively by due administration of the school and represent the matters before the authorities 3 of the Education Department in respect of the administration of the school. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities in noting the change of the correspondentship of the school and recognizing the petitioner as a correspondent of the school, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The District Educational Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada - 4th respondent filed counter stating that the rules issued through G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994 does not deal with the recognition of the person appointed as Correspondent and only on executive instructions in recognizing a member of the society as the Correspondent of the particular institution. The 2nd respondent authorized the District Collector in the State to note the change of correspondentship in respect of private aided schools under all managements as per the proforma along with checklist appended to the proceedings dated 27.10.2004 issued in Rc.No.4271/B4-2/2004 and as per the rules in force from time to time. Further, in the proforma, it is clearly mentioned that the outgoing correspondent has to sign acknowledgement as being discontinued as correspondent and a new person is appointed as the correspondent and also that he is willing to handover the charge to the new incumbent. But, the petitioner's Management has not submitted the proposal to recognize the petitioner as a Correspondent with the signatures of the outgoing 4 correspondent, which is contrary to the rules and executive instructions in force. Accordingly, the 4th respondent has not forwarded intimation of the correspondentship of the petitioner to the District Collector. Further, in order to avoid the difficulty in payment of salaries to the staff working in the school, after obtaining the approval from the District Collector vide proceedings dated 09.02.2018, the 4th respondent has appointed the Deputy Educational Officer, Rajahmundry as a Special Officer to the Lutheran Aided High school, Jampet, Rajahmundry for payment of salaries and for smooth running of the administration. The 5th respondent, the previous correspondent, has also approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.17268 of 2018 against the Management for removing him as a Correspondent of the Lutheran Aided High school. The provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act deal with the nomination of a person to manage the affairs of the institution, as it does not deal with the recognition of the person appointed as Correspondent. The Management has to follow the rules and executive instructions and submit the proposal in the proforma to take note of the petitioner as a Correspondent of the school. Hence, the 4th respondent is not in a position to process the file to the District Collector as per the Circular instructions of the 2nd respondent issued on 27.10.2004. As per the Circular instructions, it is mandatory to get the signatures of the outgoing and approved Correspondent of the School on Declaration/Reliving of 5 outgoing Correspondent and unless the requirement is complied with, the petitioner's correspondentship cannot be approved by the respondents.
4. Heard Sri Vijay Mathukimilli, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents 1 to 4.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions of the learned counsel, and on perusal of the record, this Court found that the Management of the Lutheran Aided High school, Jampet, Rajahmundry has not properly submitted the appointment of the petitioner - Mr.M.Isaiah as a Correspondent of the school in the prescribed proforma to the 4th respondent - District Educational Officer to forward the same to the District Collect as per the Circular instructions dated 27.10.2004 issued by the 2nd respondent, to take note of the change of the Correspondentship of the school. The reasons stated by the petitioner for non-submission of the signed acknowledgement of the outgoing correspondent and handed over the management of the school to the new incumbent correspondent, are that the 5th respondent - previous correspondent had misappropriated the funds of the Church and the Management was constrained to file a police complaint against him which was registered as FIR No.417 of 2017 of Rajahmundry III Town Police Station for the offences 6 punishable under Sections 427, 406 and 408 of IPC. The 5th respondent obtained bail and after obtaining bail, his whereabouts are not known.
6. On previous occasion, when he was asked to submit acknowledgement acknowledging the appointment of the petitioner as a Correspondent in his place and handover the charge to him, the 5th respondent refused to put his signature. Because of non-availability of 5th respondent - previous correspondent as his whereabouts are not known, it is not possible for the Management to trace him or obtain his signature in the proforma. However, the said contention is untenable in the light of the procedure prescribed in the rules and executive instructions and pendency of Writ Petition No.17268 of 2018 filed by the 5th respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the competent authority as prescribed under the provisions of the Act alone is competent to take note of the changes of the Correspondentship of the school, but the power of the competent authority cannot be delegated to the District Collector by the 2nd respondent vide executive instructions dated 27.10.2004. The provision of Section 24(2) of the Act deals with the nomination of a person as Secretary or Correspondent of the institution and its intimation to the competent authority. It is profitable to extract the provision, which reads thus:
7
"The management shall, for the purposes of this Act, nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution, whether called by the name of secretary, correspondent or by any other name, and intimate such nomination within thirty days thereof to the competent authority."
The purport of the above provision is that the Management shall nominate a person to manage the affairs of the institution in the name of secretary/correspondent or by any other name and intimate such nomination to the competent authority.
8. A reading of the above provision clearly states that as and when a new correspondent is appointed, same has to be intimated to the competent authority within a period of 30 days thereof, which means it has to be intimated to the authority concerned, competent authority, or the District Collector as authorized by the 2nd respondent as per the executive instructions dated 27.10.2004. It has to be submitted through District Educational Officer as per the rules and executive instructions in the prescribed proforma along with singed acknowledgement of the outgoing correspondent and handover the charge of the institution to the incumbent correspondent.
9. The executive instructions issued by the 2nd respondent are in force and the same is not challenged in this writ petition. Hence, the same could not be declared as illegal and 8 contrary to the provisions of the Act or rules. When that be the rule position, the action of the 4th respondent - District Educational Officer in not forwarding the management's proposal with regard to the change of the correspondent of the school and appointed the petitioner as a correspondent of the school, to take note of the changes, could not said to be illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act and rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994.
10. But, to tide over the difficulties of the payment of salaries to the staff of the Lutheran High School, Jampet, Rajahmundry, the District Collector vide proceedings dated 09.02.2018 has appointed the Deputy Educational Officer, Rajahmundry as Special Officer. Hence, the difficulties encountered by the petitioner and the Management of the school in payment of salaries could not be countenanced.
11. However, in view of G.O.Ms.No.14, Education (SE-PS.1) Department, dated 24.02.2006 issued by the Government, in order to avoid delay in disposing of cases and with a view to decentralize the powers and to facilitate the public convenience, Government has authorized the District Collectors to perform the functions of the competent authority under Section 24 of the Act.
9
12. Hence, this Court, in the interest of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a comprehensive representation to the District Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada ventilating his grievance and not taking note of the change of the correspondentship of the Lutheran High School, Jampet, Rajahmundry and the difficulties faced by the school in approaching the educational authorities for management of the school, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On submission of such representation, the District Collector is directed to consider the same as per law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter and communicate the decision taken thereon to the petitioner as well as the Management of the school.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
14. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO 01-09-2021 anr