Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
G. Prakasha Rao vs The District Educational Officer And ... on 13 October, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(3)ALT425
Author: Mohammed Habeeb Shams Ansari
Bench: Mohammed Habeeb Shams Ansari
ORDER Mohammed Habeeb Shams Ansari, J.
1. The petitioner was working as a Superintendent of the Church of South India Boarding Home and was appointed as Correspondent to the C.S.I. Elementary and High School, Nandikotkur from 1-6-1985 by Order dated 29-6-1985 issued by the Bishop in Rayalseema Diocese while continuing him as Superintendent. The Executive Committee at its meeting held on 18-4-1995 took a policy decision not to continue the petitioner as Correspondent of the said School. The Executive Committee passed a resolution dated 21-4-1995 removing the petitioner from the post of Correspondent and the resultant vacancy be filled up by appointing Rev. M.B. Gnaneswar Rao. The District Educational Officer, Kurnool under Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code and as per the proposals received from the respondents approved the transfer of Correspondent-ship of petitioner to the said Rev. M.B. Gnaneswar Rao. It is this order of approval of 1st respondent dated 6-6-1995 that is assailed in the above Writ petition.
2. Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said order of approval is violative of principles of natural justice besides being without jurisdiction and therefore the same is liable to be declared void. A Counter is filed on behalf of the third respondent wherein it is stated that as per the constitution of the diocese of the Nandyal which is a part of Church of South India, the Educational Committee has the power to deal with all matters relating to educational institutions established by it and the Executive Committee has the power either to accept or reject proposals. In exercise of the aforesaid power the Educational Committee passed the resolution dated 18-4-1995 which was accepted by the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 21-4-1995 and the proposal was duly approved by respondent No. l in accordance with Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code and the 1st respondent i.e., the District Educational Officer is the competent authority to approve the same and having approved the said resolution in exercise of the power and authority vested in the 1st respondent, the order impugned in the above Writ Petition is legal, valid and binding on the petitioner and that the school is a Minority Educational Institution.
3. It is not disputed that the institution to which the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondent is a Private Institution as defined in Section 2(35) of the A.P. Education Act and that it is a minority educational institution as defined in Section 2(29) thereof. The Educational Agency which is defined in Section 2(17) of the Act in so far as it is relevant reads as under:
'educational agency' means in relation to - (a) any minority educational institution any body of persons which has established and is administering or proposes to establish and administer such minority educational institution, and......
"Management" is defined in Section 2(27) as -
"the managing committee or the governing body by whatever name called, of a private institution to which the affairs of the said institution are entrusted, but does not include a manager."
Section 2(28) defines 'manager' as meaning-
"in relation to a private educational or special institution, the person nominated to manage the affairs of the institution under sub-section (2) of Section 24."
4. A perusal of the above definitions would show that the Management of Minority Educational Institutions is the Managing Committee or Governing body to which the affairs of the said institutions are entrusted and that it is represented by the Manager within the meaning of Section 2(28). In the instant case, according to the constitution of the Diocese of Nandyal, the Executive Committee is the authorised body to which the affairs of the said institution are entrusted. The Executive Committee of the institution, in the instant case passed resolution approving the removal of the petitioner at its meeting held on 21-4-1995. The Executive Committee is thus the Management in relation to the school in question and its power to nominate or appoint the Correspondent cannot be disputed in the light of the provisions contained in Section 24(2) of the A.P. Education Act. The Executive Committee having thus duly nominated the third respondent as the Correspondent in accordance with Section 24(2) of the A.P. Education Act and upon such nomination the Management has to intimate the same to the Department and in compliance of the said statutory provision, the Management in the instant case forwarded the nomination to the District Educational Officer who passed Order under Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code approving the transfer of the Correspondent-ship.
5. Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code reads as under:
7. Management:- Every institution on behalf of which aid is sought shall be under the management of one or more persons recognized by the Department; who in the capacity of proprietors, or of trustees or of members of Committee elected by the Society or Association by which the institution is maintained, shall undertake to be answerable for the maintenance of the institution and the fulfilment of all the conditions of recognition and aid including the due enforcement of such rules of discipline as are prescribed from time to time.
The management may, with the approval of department, appoint a person as correspondent to transact the current business of the institution with the department.
6. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the competent authority is the Government and not District Educational Officer. The respondents contend that the reference to Department in Rule 7 is to the District Educational Officer in as much as he is conferred with the powers under the A.P. Educational Inspection Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code).
7. Under Section 30 of the said Code, it has been specifically laid down that Secondary Schools are under the administrative control of the District Educational Officers except those in the Agency Areas. In the light of the said provision contained in the A.P. Educational Inspection Code, it has to be held that the District Educational Officer is the authority to grant approvals under Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code. Therefore the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 1 is not competent to approve the nomination of the third respondent as Correspondent in the place of the petitioner has to be rejected.
8. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner has been functioning as Correspondent and if he has to be removed from that post, the procedure provided in Section 24(3) has to be followed and not having followed the same, the impugned order is bad in law. To appreciate the said contention, it would be necessary to refer to Section 24(3) relevant portion of which reads as under:
"24(3)(a). Where the competent authority is satisfied that the management is responsible for the lapses or irregularities of the institution, the competent authority may, after giving to such management an opportunity to make representation and for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend the management and appoint a special officer till the reconstitution of the management:
Provided that in relation to a private institution, under the management of a charitable or religious institution, charitable or religious endowment and a wakf, the competent authority shall be the Government or an authority or officer authorised by the Government in this behalf."
A perusal of the above Section would show that the same has no application to the instant case in as much as the 'Management' is not sought to be removed. The definition of Management is not that of a Correspondent which is a different entity altogether. There is no scope for confusing the 'Management' with its nominee the Correspondent. It is the Management as defined under Section 2(27) of the Act which appoints a Correspondent. The petitioner was appointed in the similar way. By virtue of Section 24(1) of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the Educational Agency has to constitute the Management in the prescribed manner and it is evident from the provisions of this Section that it shall be a body of persons so constituted has to consist of specified number of persons. It is this body which nominates a person to manage the affairs of the institution and who is called Correspondent or Secretary. In my view, therefore, Section 24(3) has no application in relation to change in the Correspondent-ship of an institution or for grant of approvals of the nominee of the management.
9. As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to violation of principles of natural justice, it must be stated that under Section 24(2) of the A.P. Education Act, power has been conferred upon the Management to 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 30 days thereof to the Department. The post of Correspondent thus is one which has to be nominated by the Management and being a nominated post, the Correspondent acts as the nominee of the Management to manage the affairs of the institution. For making such nomination or for appointing any person in the place of the incumbent to the post of Correspondent, there is no requirement prescribed either under the Act or the rules for giving an opportunity of hearing the affected person. Therefore the Management in taking a decision to nominate the third respondent in the place of the petitioner for the post of Correspondent, it cannot be said that any rule or principles of natural justice has been violated by the management. Also the District Educational Officer in exercising the powers vested in him under Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code in approving the proposal of the Management has no statutory obligation of affording an opportunity to the person concerned before approving the said proposals in the change of Correspondent-ship. No civil consequences are entailed or visited upon the petitioner by change in the Correspondent-ship which is but a nominated office. As already noticed, the Correspondent is a nominee of the Management to transact the current business of the institution with the Department and the procedures prescribed for change in Correspondent do not envisage any enquiry or affording opportunity of hearing before granting approval under Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code.
10. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner as regards the violation of principles of natural justice has also to be rejected.
11. In the result, it has to be held that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and accordingly the above writ petition has to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.