Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Private B.Ed College Management ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 12 January, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION No.432 of 2024
ORDER:
The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"...to issue an appropriate writ, more Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the 1st Respondent Government in issuing the impugned G.O.Ms.No.1, Higher Education R.M.Department dated 01.01.2024 whereby and whereunder the 2 Respondent State Council for Higher Education is delegated with the powers to conduct the inspection of all the B.Ed.Colleges in the State that too at a belated stage by invoking the provisions of Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 with effect from the academic year 2024-24 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India besides being in contravention of the provisions of AP Universities Act, 1991 and AP Education Act, 1982 and consequently set aside the same and issue such......."
2. The members of the petitioner association are the private unaided colleges offering Bachelor of Education courses and imparting teachers training to the students of Andhra Pradesh and other states and have been scrupulously following guidelines issued by the 4th respondent, APHERMC and Universities as well from time to time.
2
3. In so far as academic year 2023-2024 is concerned, the Government came up with the impugned G.O., delegating the powers to the 2nd respondent State Council for Higher Education to inspect each and every B.Ed college in the State before the beginning of schedule of online counseling. The grievance of the petitioners is that the G.O., is absolutely unwarranted and the exercise suggested in the impugned G.O., may hamper the process of the admissions of the B.Ed. students for the academic year 2023-2024. It is purported to have been issued by invoking the provisions of Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which empowers the Government to authorize any officer for the purpose of inspecting any educational institution in the State. All the B.Ed. colleges in the State are under the supervision of the Universities and are governed by the Andhra Pradesh Universities Act and Rules, thus, the University officials are tasked with the inspection of the various B.Ed. colleges under their respective territorial jurisdiction as per Section 5(14), as per the directions issued by the Executive Council under Section 19(19) of AP Universities Act, 1991. On this basis, the Universities had conducted the inspection of all the B.Ed. colleges in the 3 month of August, 2023 and after the inspection, the three men committee appointed by the University had also conducted the inspection of B.Ed. colleges in the State. Thus, two inspections have already been conducted and through the impugned G.O., the 2nd respondent council is delegated powers to conduct the inspection, without there being any provision of law and beyond the provisions of the Act, 1982.
4. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the 4th respondent Regulatory and Monitoring Commission is empowered to conduct the inspection of the B.Ed colleges in the State under the provisions of A.P. Higher Education Regulatory and Monitoring Commission Act, 2019 and Rules framed thereunder and in such an event, the powers delegating to respondent Nos.2 and 3 without having any legal basis is absolutely unwarranted and a futile exercise. Even otherwise, Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act mentions the word 'officer' who can conduct the inspection. The 2nd respondent is governed by the Andhra Pradesh State Council for Higher Education Act, 1988 and the Act clearly states that it is only an advisory body to the State and Universities, but it is not defined or 4 termed as an officer for that matter. Though there are two bodies acting to monitor and regulate on the educational institutions in the State including the B.Ed. colleges, the necessity for issuing the impugned G.O., is contrary to the provisions of law and without proceeding with the admission procedure for the academic year 2023-24, the issuance of the impugned G.O., is unjust.
5. As per Section 2(3) of AP Universities Act, 1991, the academic year must begin in the month of July of that particular calendar year, but, insofar as the academic year 2023-24 is concerned, there has been no counseling schedule announced yet, as such, the students are the one who are subjected to face great hardship. The case of the petitioners is that the impugned G.O., would have adverse effect on the counseling schedule which has already been delayed for the academic year 2023-2024. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned G.O., dated 01.01.2024, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education, Sri. C. Sudesh Anand, learned Standing counsel for respondent no.2, Sri M. Murali Lincoln, learned Standing Counsel for 5 Nagarjuna University and Sri. T. Niranjan, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.5.
7. For better appreciation of the case, this Court feels it relevant to refer to Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which reads as under:
"31. Inspection of educational institutions-
(1) The Government or the competent authority may authorize any officer not below such rank as may be prescribed to inspect any educational institution in the State. (2) The officer authorized under sub-section (1) shall exercise general powers of inspection over the working of the educational institution.
(3) The manager and the employees of the educational institution shall at all reasonable times be bound to afford to the aforesaid officer all such assistance and facilities as maybe required for the purpose of such inspection.
(4) The manager shall comply with such directions or suggestions as may be given by the competent authority on the report of the aforesaid officer: Provided that the manager aggrieved by any such direction or suggestion may appeal, within thirty days from the date of receipt of such direction or suggestion to the prescribed authority whose decision on such appeal shall be final.
50. Inspection or Inquiry - (1) The competent authority shall have the right to cause an inspection of, or inquiry in respect of, any educational institution, its accounts, its buildings, 6 laboratories, libraries, workshops and equipment and also of the examinations, teaching and other work conducted or done by the institution to be made by such person or persons as it may direct and to cause an enquiry to be made in respect of any other matter connected with the institution and the educational agency shall be entitled to be represented thereat.
(2) The competent authority shall communicate to the educational agency the views of that authority with reference to the result of such inspection or inquiry and may after ascertaining the opinion of the educational agency thereon, advise that agency upon the action to be taken. (3) The educational agency shall report to the competent authority the action, if any, which is proposed to be taken or has been taken upon the results of such inspection or inquiry. Such report shall be furnished within such time as the competent authority may direct.
(4) Where the educational agency does not, within a reasonable time, take action to the satisfaction of the competent authority, that authority may, after considering any explanation furnished or representation made by the educational agency, issue such directions as that authority deems fit; and the educational agency and the head of the institution shall comply with such directions and shall be responsible for the implementation of every such direction."
8. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education has brought to the notice of this Court that if at all the Court feels that the APCHE is only advisory body and is not competent authority for conducting inspection in B.Ed 7 colleges in the State, the Government is willing to withdraw the said G.O.Rt.No.1, Higher Education (R.M) Department, dated 01.01.2024 and conduct the inspection of these educational institutions as required under Section 31 and 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and accordingly, would appoint an officer as under the aforesaid sections.
9. Admittedly, as APCHE is only an advisory body but not the competent authority for conducting inspection in B.Ed. colleges in the State and even as per the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education that the Government is willing to withdraw the said G.O.Rt.No.1, Higher Education (R.M) Department, dated 01.01.2024 and conduct the inspection of these educational institutions as required under Section 31 and 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, this Court feels it appropriate to set- aside G.O.Rt.No.1, dated 01.01.2024 with a liberty to the Government to conduct the inspections as under Section 31 and 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. It is also made clear that under the guise of these inspections, the counseling schedule for the students may not be delayed.
10. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
8
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_______________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 12.01.2024 GSS