Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ester Axene Res. High School vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 April, 2019
Bench: C.Praveen Kumar, M.Satyanarayana Murthy
vee net et, Lee 0 Poon tees Treas, as teben G07. < & bo 14.CGM AIDED PRIMARY SCHOOL, Chebrolu, Unguturi Mandal West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Correspondent. Smt. AV S Mahalakshmi PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by fits Principal Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District . The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, lbrahimpatnam, Krishna District KO . RESPONDENTS Patition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the GO Ms. No. 43 Dt. 09-08-2018 of the Ist Respandent, bringing amendments te Rule 12 of GO Ms NO. 1 Dated.01-01-1994 In the matter of making appointments to the staff in private Aided institutions, as bearing arbitrary and illegal and unconstitutional violating article 14 and 30(1) of the constituion of india inasmuch as it fakes away the rights of the managements in making appointments to the staff in the institution and canfers the same on authorities, and consequently set-aside the same conferring, the right to administer institutions by the managements and in the appointments of the institution and IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circurnstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GOMs.No.43, School Education PS Department, dated: 09-08-2018 at the interest of Justice. 1A NO: 2 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take note the clarification given above in regard to the status of the institutions that are the Petitioners in the Writ Petition at the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI CH SAMSON BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION ns geet bree Mag: S Mboee. we cone Le LLY Jagete Us $ Teteds got Sone VIP NO: 29026 OF 2018 Bebween: CONVENTION OF BAPTIST CHURCHES OF THE NORTHER CIRCARS (CBCNC), Regd. No. 16/48-49 Head Quarters, CBM Compound, Kakinada East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Convenor. Sri. Talluri Prasanna Kumar . PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Schoo! Education Department Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus daciaring the GO Ms. No. 43 Dt. 09-08-2018 of the ist Respondent, bringing amendments to Rule 12 of GO Ms NO. 1 Dated. 01-01-1994 in the matter of making appointments to the staff in private Aided institutions, as being arbitrary and illegal and unconstitutional violating article 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it takes away the rights of the managements in making appointments to the staff in the Institution and confers the same on authorities, and consequently set-aside the sare conferring the right to administer the institutians by the managements and in the appointments of the institution. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GOMs.No.43, School Education PS Department, dated. 09-08- 2018 at the interest of Justice. IA NO: 2 OF 2018 Between: Dasari Yacob, Convener, Education Committee Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Cirears, R/o. Kankikpadu, Krishna District. _AMPLEAD PETITIONER/PROP., 3° RESPONDENT > 3 3 . SELENA STDS NANTES Fetes (+ Aided institutions, as being arbitrary and illegal and unconstitutional violating article 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it takes away the rights of the managements in making appointments to the staff in the institution and confers the same on authorities, and consequently set-aside the same canferring the right to administer the institutions by the managements and in the appointments of the institution and issue such other Writ or Order ar direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case. iA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GOMs.No.43, School Education PS Depariment, dated: 09-08- 2018 at the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI CH SAMSON BABU. Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 30456 OF 2018 Between: 1. Chenchu Aided Upper Primary School, Rep. by its President and Correspondent, Sri B. Chittaranjan Das, S/o. Krishna Murthy, aged 74 years, R/o. Pakanati Estate, Flot No.405, Chakalibavi Centre, Etukuru Road, Guntur 522 003. 2. Patibandia Sittaramalah High School, Patibandia Sitaramaiah High School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Sri Vasireddi Jayaramayya, S/o. V. Narayana Rao, Aged 58 years, R/o. Lakshmipuram, Guntur S.KA.D.V.S. High School, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri K. Vasudevara Naidu, S/o. Govinda Naidu, aged 62 years, Pinapadu, Tenali, Guntur District. . 4. S.V.S.C. High School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Sri Sistla Kodanda Ramesh, S/o. late S.V. Sastry, Aged 62 years, Seetharampuram, Nuzella, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District. §. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Aided Elementary Schoo, Rep. by its Correspondent, Sri Savabathini Edukondalu, S/o. S. Yallamanda, aged 37 years, R/o. H.No.19- 9-107, Etukuru Road, Gandhinagar Main Road, Guntur. 522 003. 6. Hindu Aided Upper Primary School, Rep. by is Correspondent, Sri Sairam Pantuiu, S/o. Bhairava Swamy, aged 66 years, Repalle, Guntur District ¢. Aided Hindu Elementary School, Rep. by its Manager, Smt. Karnarajugadda Annapurna, W/o. K. Sitaramanjaneya Sarma, aged 81 years, Borravaripalem, Nizampatnam Mandal, Kuchinapudi Post, Guntur District. 8 A.B. Primary High School,, Rep. by its Correspondent, Sri P. Ramprasad, S/o, Ramachandraiah, aged 56 years, Pushudavaripalem, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District 9. LB.H-A.ULP. School, Rep. by ts Correspondent, Sri Odugu Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Narasimham, Kothapaiem, Nizampatham Mandal. Guntur District. ce & ee AND 1. The State of A.P, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of A.P.,, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District The Commissioner, School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 24-125, Vijayawada - Mylavaram Road, Bhimaraju Gutta, Ibrahimpainam, Krishna District - 521 456 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, Guntur District. The District Educational Officer, Collectorate Compound, Guntur District at Guniur. or Oe .. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order one particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018 amending the A.P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993, in particular amending Rule 12 amitling Rule 13 as itegal and in conflict with the provisions of the AP. Education Act, 1982, consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner schools to fill the vacant aided posts in accordance with the Rule 12 of the amended rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that In the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 9-8-2018, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, Counsel for the Petitioners:SRi. N SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 32262 OF 2018 Between: 1. The KVN Aided Primary and High School, Allagada Vilage and Mandal Kurnoal District Rep by its Correspondent Shaik Jeelan Basha 2. Vil Ward Partly Aided High School Velugodu, Kurnool District Rep by its Correspondent Sri G 8B J Raju . PETITIONERS YF OS Xs x > 2 BS . ¢ £ 3 Peay 3 3 3 3 2 & 10 2, The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District «RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the GO Ms. No. 43 Dt. 09-08-2018 of the Ist Respondent, bringing amendments to Rule 12 of GO Ms NO. 1 Dated. 01-01-1994 in the matter of making appointments to the staff in private Aided institutions, as being arbitrary and itegal and unconstitutional violating Article 14 and 30(1) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it takes away the rights of the managements in making appointments to the staff in the institution and confers the same on authorities, - and consequently set-aside the sarne conferring the right to administer the institutions by the managements and in the appointments of the institution. [A NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GOMs.No.43, School Education PS Department, dated. 09-08- 2018 at the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRL CH SAMSON BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 32337 OF 2018 Between: 1. Chowdeswari Devi Oriental High School, Kadapa, rep by its Correspondent, G. Mohan Reddy, S/o G.Subba Reddy, Aged about 60 years. 2. On Mitta Maligswara Oriental High School, Pulivendia, Kadapa District, rap by its correspondent, SmtV.Lakshmi Devi, W/o V.Lakshminarayana, Aged about 61 years. S.B.V.B.Sabha High School,, Pullampeta, Kadapa District, rep by its Correspondent, N.Sree Ramulu, S/o N.Chennaiah, Aged about 56 years. H.M.M.High School, Railway Kodur, Kadapa District, Rep by its correspondent, K.M.Deva Sundaram, S/o K.M.Daniel, Aged about 65 years. V.B.V.S. Aided ULP.School,, Ahamed Nagar Street, Proddutur, Kadapa District, rep by its correspondent, L.Chand Basha, S/o L.Jamal Sahab, Aged about 49 years. 6. Mahaboob Aided U.P.School,, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, Rep by its Correspondent, S.Muzatfar Hussain, s/o S.Mahaboob Saheb, Aged 51 years. *. Sarada Aided U.P School,, Rayachoty, Kadapa District, rep by its correspondent, V.Uma Maheswari, W/o M.Adinarayana Babu, Aged about oS years. w wa soo Or oe wee fe, ae ened SS Bets OSS hee 12 27.Venkateswara Nikethan Aided Elementary School, Anrqyapuram, Pincha post, Tsundupalll Mandal, Kadapa District, rep by its correspondent, D.Ramsunil Reddy, S/o D.Hanumantha Reddy, Aged about 46 years. 28.Sri Balaji Nikethan Aided Elementary School, Indiramma Colony, Madanapalli Road, Rayachoti, Kadapa district, Rep by its correspondent, P.Rajamani, W/o Krishna Reddy, Aged about 52 years. 29.Sri Sanihinikethan Oriental primary school, Dommaranandyala, Mylavaram Mandal, Kadapa District, rep by tts correspondent, V.Ramanjamma, W/o V.S.Narasimha charyulu, Aged about 71 years. 30. LIM.K.High School, Kanigin, Prakasham District, Rep by its correspondent, M.Balaji Rao, S/o Late Vengaiah, Aged about 58 years. 31.S.K.G.Oriental High School, Proddatur, Kadapa District, Rep by its correspondent, D.Radhakrishna, S/o D.Subba Raghavulu, Aged about 67 years. 32.StJacobs Aided U.P School, Mandiapadu, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasham District, rep by its Correspondent, V.J.F.Ramesh Babu, S/o V. Samson, Aged about 58 years. 33.StJdacobs Aided High School, Mandlapadu, Giddaluru Mandal, Prakasham District, rep by its Correspondent, V.J.F.Ramesh Babu, S/o V.Samsan, Aged about 58 years. 34.Ambedkar Oriental High School, Ashok Nagar, Chinnachowk, Kadapa, Kadapa district, Rep by its Correspondent, M.Venkata Subbarmma, Wa J Venkata Ramana, Aged about 45 years. 35.S.P.Oriental Upper Primary Aided School, Thiruvengalapuram, Badvel Mandal, Kadapa District, rep by its Correspondent,P.Venkatasubbaiah, Venkatasubbaiah, Aged about GO years. 36.Yogi Vidyalayam N.G.O.Colony, Kadapa, Kadapa District, Rep byits Correspondent, B.Revathi Devi, W/a Sudhakar, Aged about 60 years. 37.V.C.A.High School, Venkatareddy pall, MJM.Padu Mandal, Prakasham District, rep by Hs correspondent, K.Tirupathi Reddy, s/o Late Venkata Reddy, Aged about 86 years. 38.V.C.A.Primary School, Venkatareddy palll, M.M.Padu Mandal, Prakasham District, rep by its correspondent, K.Tirupath] Reddy, s/o Late Venkata Reddy, Aged about 86 years. 39.V.C.A.primary School, Edaravari pall, M.M.Padu Mandal, Prakasham District, rep by its correspondent, K.Tirupathi Reddy, s/o Late Venkata Reddy, Aged about 86 years. 40.S.5.V.S.AU.P. School, 28th ward, Cooperative colony, Kadapa District, rep by its correspondent, O.janardhan Raju, S/o O.Subba Raju, Aged abaut 63 years. 41.5rn B.P.Seshaiah Sanskrit High School, Pullampat, Kadapa District, Rep by ils correspondent. A.Chandra Sekhar, S/o A.Rajendra Prasad, Aged abaut 34 years. PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The Siate of Andhra Pradesh,, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Baucation Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur istrict. 3. Commissioner and Director of School Education,, Bhimavaraju Gutta, ibrahimpatinam, Viiayawada, Krishna District, AP. ..RESPONDENTS L043 Spot ae SAA Ae se 5 s & & WP NO: 33200 OF 2018 Between: St Marry Fathima Aided Schools, Nandyal, Kurnool District Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Correspondent K A Frakash PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, Schaol Education Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Guntur District 2. the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, lorahimpatnam, Krishna District RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the GO Ms. No. 43 Dt. 09-08-2018 of the 1% Respondent, bringing amendments to Rule 12 of GO Ms No. 1 Dated.01-01-1994 In the matter of making appointments to the staff in private Aided institutions, as being arbitrary and illegal and unconstitutional violating article 14. of the Constitution of India inasmuch as it takes away the rights of the managements in making appointments te the staff in the institution and confers the same on authorities, and consequently set-aside the sare conferring the right to administer the institutions by the managements and in the appointments of the institution. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GO Ms. No. 43, School Education PS Department, dated: 09-08- 2016 at the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. M. SRI VIJAY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION o veers. "abe? "anae rebee oedee I ae. Lon orek Heeb teee Sunt of Lo oP" ft ay Nepee. betes Fates Ene eit ee Shee L6- Respondent to permit the Petitioners Schools to fil the vacant aided posts in accordance with Rule 12 of the un-amended rule framed in G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 07.01.1994 IA NO? TOF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents permit the Petitioner's Management: to fill up the aided vacancies as per pre-armended Rules of 1993 forthwith pending disposal of the W.P. IA NO: 2 OF 2048 Petition under Section 157 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS) Department, dated 09.08.2018 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. K.RAMAMOHAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 33478 OF 2018 Between: 1. Prakasam Aided U.P. School, Indira Nagar, Addanki, Addanki (iM), Prakasam District,represented by its Correspondent Tanguturi Prakasam. 2, M.C_.S.R.M. Aided U.P. School, Ankireddipalli, Racharla Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Manager/Caorrespondent M. China Venkata Reddy 3. VVISUR.C, Aided Primary School, Kothapalli of Narayapalla, H.M.Padu Mandal, represented by its Correspondent V. Rama Krishna Reddy. 4, Samavesam High School, Ongole, Prakasam District, represented by its Carrespondent T. John Krupadanam. ® Hindu Aided Elernentary School, Gaddalagunta,. Ongole (M), Prakasam District, represented by its Manager S. Nirmala Kumari. G. A.A.A. Primary School, Pellur, Ongole (M), Prakasam District, represented by its Correspondent D. Suvarnamma. 7. Hindu Aided Elementary School, Emanipalem, Ongole, Qngole (MM), Prakasam District, represented by its Manager K. Padmavathi. 8. Aided C.P. School, L. Rajupalem, Chimakurthi Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Correspondent Y. Sudhakar Suri. 9. SV. Aided Primary School, Singarayakonda, Prakasam District, represented by its Correspondent Shaik Sattar Basha. 1O.NUM.C. Aided Primary School, Ravivaripalem, Tangutur Mandal, Prakasam District, represented by its Correspondent D. Seetharamaiah. 11.G.M.D.C, Aided Primary School, Chejerla, Ongole (M), Prakasam District, represented by its Correspondent S. Dhanaraj. té. Ravindrabharathi Aided U.P. School, Ramnagar, Addanki, Addanki (M), F fakasam District, represented by its Correspondent Thota China adduleti. tae Py sire Loy yaet 7 veges £ s& 18 AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, achool Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Cammissioner and Directar of School, Education Andhra Pradesh, ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District. . RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms. No. 43 School Education (P.S)} Department dated 09.08.2018 issued by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutions of India and consequentially set aside the same. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend G.O.Ms. No. 43 School Education (P.S) Department dated 09.08.2018, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI. P. V.S. 5.5. RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 34160 OF 2018 | Between: Ravi Aided Upper Primary School, Allagada (Village and Mandal) Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Correspondent Gadham Selti Venkata Subbaiah , PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department Secretariat, Velgapudi; Guntur District 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District . RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the GO Ms. No. 43 Dt 09-08-2018 of the 1° Respondent, bringing amendments to Rule 12 of GQ Ms NO. 1 Dated. 01-01-1994 in the matter of making appointments to the staff in private Aided institutions, as being arbitrary wet i 4 4 ¢ f ; ; t é t é t t ¢ ¢ $ $ $ $ $ ; $ ¢ $ $ $ $ $ ¢ $ $ $ $ $ 3 teetst IA NO: 71 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the GO Ms.No.43, School Education PS Department, dated. 09-08- 2018 at the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI. CH. SAMSON BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 35133 OF 2018 Between: | 1. Vidyasagar Aided Upper Primary School, Viswanadhapuram, C.K. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District-516004, Rep. by its Correspondent, William Krupakara Raa. VJ. Vidya Niketan Aidied Upper Primary School, Akkayapalli, Kadapa-516 000, Rep. by its Correspondent, B.Roshaiah . Aided Upper Primary School, Balijapalli, C.K.Dinne Mandal, Kadapa Disdtrict-516004, Rep. by its Correspondent, M.Lakshmi Devi. S.C.M.V.N.H. Sehool, Prakash Nagar Colony, Kadapa, Rep. by its Secretary /Correspondent, P Venkateshwara Rao. | Sri Rama Krishna High School, Kadapa, Rep. by its Correspondent, P Krishna Murthy. _. PETITIONERS AND a & oN 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Disirict. 2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, lbrahimpatnam, Krishna District. RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fied therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms. No. 43 School Education (P.S) Department dated 09.08.2018 issued by the first respondent, as Hlegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitutions of India and consequentially set aside the same. i ; s 2 bark £45 2 ob 5 eats : reregt z Sot Z Braet ¢ aE Webs ere S WRIT PETITION NO: 43104 OF 2018 Between: 1. Guntur District Aided Schools Management Association, Guntur, Represented by its Secretary, Sri Bhatraju Chittaranjan Das, S/o. Late B.Krishna Murthy, aged 74 years, R/o. Pakanati Estates, Flat No.405, Chakalibhavi Centre, Etukuru Road, Guntur 522 003. 2. The Aided Primary School, Pittupalem, Rep. by its Manager, Sri Didla Venkata Veera Reddy, S/o. D. Krishna Murthy Reddy, aged 49 years, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. . PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary to the Government, School Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, School Educalion, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner of School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 24-125, Vijayawada, Mylavaram Road, Bhimarajugutta, Ibrahimpainam, Krishna District 521 456. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, Guntur District. The District Educational Officer, Guntur, Guntur District Ae RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018 as illegal and in contravention of Education Act, 1982 and also in vidlation of Articles 14, 15 and 29 of Constitution, consequently set aside the G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018 by directing the respondents to permit the petitioner schools to fill the aided teaching and non-teaching posts. IA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRI. N, SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION SASS SSA SSS NSSF SSSI bad 7 fabes 24 on authorities and consequently set aside the same G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education Department, dated 09-08-2018. IA NQ: 7 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education Department, dated 09-08-2018 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. M. R. TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION WP NO: 45521 OF 2078 Between: 4. C.K. High School Committee, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, Sri P Adi Sudarshana Sundara Rao, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged 78 years, R/o. Mangalagiri, Guntur District 2. Ramakrishna Hindu High School, Rep by its Correspondent, Sri Malilela Srinath Chowdhary, S/o. Seshagiri Rao, aged 685 years,Amaravathi (Temple), Guntur District ..PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of A.P, Rep by its Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 2. The State of A.P, Rep by its Principal Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. 3. The Commissioner, School Education, Government of Andhra Pradesh,24- 125, Vijayawada - Mylavaram Road, Bhimaraju Gutta, ibrahimpatnam Krishna District - 521 456. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Guntur, Guntur District. The District Educational Officer, Collectorate Compound, Guntur District at Guntur. ae RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order one particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018 amending the A-P. Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1983, in particular amending Rule 12 omitting Rule 13 as illegal and in conflict with the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982, consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner schools to fill the vacant aided posts in accordance with the Rule 12 of the amended rules framed under G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.07.1984. iA NO: 1 OF 2018 <S 3 an 4 t on, g s 8 arene tere wares we & 20 41.David Educational Society, AA Aided Primary Schoal, Peddivaripaiam, Parchur Md, rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent S Vivekayvathi. 12.Lingala Samuel Memorial L.S.M.Aided Primary School, Jayasankar Nagar, Chirala Md, Prakasam Dt. Represented by its Secretary and Correspondent Tealagathoti Ankaiah. . 13.Aided Elementary School, Vetapaiem MD, Prakasam Dt. Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent S.Satyanandam 44.P.V.R.A.UP.School, Dwarakapadu Dwaraka pad, Valaparla (PO), Prakasam Dt. Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent Ramanatham. 15.Parankusam Venkata Sesha Charyulu Educational Society, P.V.S.Aided Elementary School, Pothavaram, Naguluppalapadu Md rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent P. Narasimha Charyulu 46. 5ri Venkateswara Educational Society, Hindu Aided U.P. School, Kottapalli, Prakasam Dt Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent K. Picchi Reddy 17.Saint Shalem Educational Society, ST.Shalem U.P. School, Giddaluru, Prakasam Dt. Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent P. Victor Paul 18.Sri Bhramaramba Educational Society, Shri Bhramaramba Aided High School, Kambum, Prakasam Dt, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent K. Jayalakshmi Devi, 19.S.L.V. Educational Society, S.B.N.R.M. group of Aided Primary and High Schools, Kottapaile, Komorolu, Kamorolu Mandal rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent B. Narayana Reddy 20.G.8.8.T School Committee, G.S.S.T. Aided Primary and High School, Karedy, Prakasam dt. Rep. by its Secretary and Cornsponcent E, Rajeswatt. 21.5ri Sarada Vidya Mandir, Sri Sarada Vidya Mandir Aided U.P. School, Thurimalla, Cumbum Mandal, Prakasam Dist, Rep by its Correspondent, P Mahesh Kumar. 22. Sti Vivekananda Vidya Oriental Aided High School, Ongole, Prakasam Dist, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent T.Prasada Rao 23. Sri Srinivasa Aided UP School, Electric Colony, Cumbum, Praksam Dist. Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent L. Sridevi. 24.The True Saviour Missionary Society, A.M.Aided Primary Schoal, Bethelapuram, Donakonda Mandal, Prakasam Dist. Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent MIV.Prasad 25 Rural Educational Development Society Aided High School, And Rural Educational Society Aided Primary School, Nallagunila, Prakasam Dist. Rep. by its Secretary and Correpsondent K. Prem Kumar 26.Sri Srinivasa Educational Society, SMS Oriental primary and High School, Uyyalapalli, Nellore dist. Rep by its secretary and Correspondent V. Srinivasa Reddy 27. Nethaji Memorial Educational Society, and Sree Sarada Vidya Nilayam Elementary School, Ayadhya Nagar, Viiayawada-3, Krishna Dist rep. by Its Secretary and Correspondent K.Srinivas (Also the President of Private Recognised Aided Schools Managements Association of Andhra Pradesh) 28. Sri Viiayawada Gujarathi Samaj, L.P.C.T. Gujarathi Vidyalaya E.M. High Schoal, and Sri Vijayawada Gujarathi Samaj, L.P.C.T. Gujarathi Vidyalaya E.M. Primary School, Vijiayawada-1, Krishna Dist., Rep by tts Secretary and Carrespondent, Piyush J. Seth 29.ST.BVD TRUST S.T.B.E.M. High School, Bhavannarayana Street, Vijayawada, And S.T.B.E.M. Primary School, Bhavannarayana Street, Viiavawada, Krishna District, represented by its Secretary and Correspondent T. Jaya Rama Prasad. 30. Viiayawada tron and Hardware Merchant Association, Jai Kisan Steel Company EM High School, and Jai Kishan Steel Company Elementary High School, Main Bazar, Viiayawada. Krishna Dist., Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent K.V Seshavatharam Lee oda. oe om, we les Le oe a : eo} ; bet ee hee ebee: sees 28 51.The Batthula Ramanappa Middle High School Cormmittes, BRC High School, Ameenabad, Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent B.V. Ramana 52 Sri Saraswathi Committee School S.S.C_-A.UP, School Guntur Dist., Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent, D.V. Subba Rao 53. Yanadhi Educational Society, R.A.ULP. School, Guntur Dist, Rep. by its Secretary and Correspondent, T.R.Jaya Chandar 54.S.R.N.T.C. Hinahu Elementary School S.R.N.T.C., Hindhu UP Schoal Guntur Dist., Rep by its secretary and Correspondent, G. Yugandhar. 55,Karasani Anjireddy Educational Society H.A.U.P. School, Old Guntur, Rep, by ifs Secretary and Correspondent M.Rajani 56.Sn Kodanda Ramaseva Samajam Sri Pottisriramulu Aided Elementary school, Guntur dt rep by its Secretary and Correspondent V. Rama Devi. 57.5.V.N.A. High School, Chatragadda, Guntur DL Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent M.Subba Raa 58. Jal. Hindh U.P. School Peddapalli, Guntur Dist. Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent V.V.Koteswara Rao. 50.3. AU.P. School, Pudivada Guntur Dist. Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent Y. Syama Sundaram 60.N.A.U.P. School, Repalle Guntur Dt. Rep by its Secretary and Correspondent D.Ramakrishna 61.Aided U.P Schoo!, Pecamatlapudi, Guntur dt. Rep by its Secretary and Carrespondent G.L. Vasantha Kumari 62. Aided Hindu Elementary School, Ponnuru Guntur. Dist rep by its Secretary and Correspondent Sai Vijay Kumar. 63.Aided Hindu Elementary School, Ganesha Pirangipuram Guntur Dt. Represented by its Secretary and Correspondent B. Fathi Raju. PETITIONERS AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Special Chief Secretary to the Government, Education Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Dept. of School Education, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District 3. The Commissioner of School Education Government of Andhra Pradesh, 24-125, Vijayawada- Mylavaram Road, Bhimaraju Gutta, lbrahimpatnam, Krishna District- 521 456. . RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms. No. 43 School Education (PS) Department dated 09.08.2018 issued by the Respondents where under Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01,01.1994 of Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993 was amended and Rule 13 has been amitted taking away the right of the managements of the Petitioner Institutes to make appointments to the vacant posts in the Aided institutions and entrusting the same to the Government officials as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also in conflict and violation of the pravisions of the AP Education Act, 1982 and rights guaranteed thereunder and also in violation of the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently set aside the same directing the Respondents to S& y K ~~ <8 wy spe ¥ * Sa HAG & MEM.) WP 28912 of 2078 & batch is contrary to the provisions and rules under the A.P. Education Act. Therelore, the allegations made in W.P.No.28952 of 2018 are taken into consideration, which are more cormprehensive as leading petition, besides the allegation with regard to violation of procedure in bringing the amendment raised in W.P.Nos.45521, 43104 & 30456 of 2018 filed by Sri N. Subba Rao, counsel for the petitioners. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are educational institutions are recognized by the Governmetit of Andhra Pradesh and partly aided and has been catering to the educational needs of State for the last many decades, working specially among the minorities and downtrodden communities of the society, maintaining high standards of education and achieving 100% results in public examinations. These institutions are governed by the provisions of A.P. Education Act and the rules framed thereunder from time to tyme. All the petitioners/educational institutions are recognized as minority institutions. It is statedl that, A.P. Education Act came into force in the year 1982 as per the provision of Section 99 of the A.P. Education Act; Government reserved the powers to make rules for earrying out the purpose of the Act and sub-section {xi}; the Rules were to be made for establishment, maintenance and administration of the educational institutions. However, the rules so framed invoking the powers under Section 99 cannot be inconsistent with the provisions of the Education Act and Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, It is submitted that, in the year 1993, the Government issued comprehensive rules for the administration of private educational institutions vide G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS.2}) Department dated O1.01.1994 known as Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions eee 5 HACG & MSM WP 28912 of 2018 4 batch sclection process by State and the selection is subject to approval by the campetent authority. As per the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, appointments Shall be made by the Educational Agency and when the appointment was made following the rules, grant-in-aid is to be released by the Government in respect of such appointments, either for teaching or rion-teaching staff. It is submitted that the right of the managements of a Minority Educational Institution would flow from the constitutional provisions under Article 30(1). The right to make appointments, deal with the appointed staff, selecting a candidate of their choice for appointment, is under the exclusive domain of the management. The educational authorities cannot interfere with such a prerogative except in the event that the staff so appointed does not posses the qualifications to hold the post or such appointment is for bidden under the law of the land. If any enactment or rules empowering the administration are taking away the right guaranteed to the management of a minority institution, it would be unconstitutional and therefore the same is hable to be struck down. It is submitted that the Apex Court upheld the exclusive rights of minority educational institutions, under the protective umbrella of Article 30{ 1). Therefore, the Rules framed by the Government would take away the right of the institutions and would amount to infringing the right of minority educational institutions guaran teed under Article S0(1} and when the rule is inconsistent with the constitution, the sare is lable to be struck dows. HAC. U& MSM, WP 28012 of 2018 & batch x Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh! dealt exhaustively when Rule 12 was sought to be amended earlier to take away the rights of private managements in making appointments vide G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 02.11.1999, wherein the Division Bench struck down the same as being unconstitutional. Despite striking the G.O, the first respondent again repeated the same mistake, hence, the impugned G.O is liable to be struck down, and prayed to allow the writ petitions. The first respondent filed detailed counter on behalf of the Education Department, denying the material allegations, while admitting about amendment to Rule 12 by issuing G.O.Ms.Ne.43 School Education (PS) Department dated 09.08.2018 and omitting Rule iS. The specific contention of the respondent is that, Education is a state subject under Entry 25 list and as per the provisions of the A.P. Hcducation Act, 1982 (as amended by Act 27 of 1982) under Section 78, Government has no power to make rules to regulate the methods of recruitment and also to continue any officer or teacher into an educational service and also empowered to make rules without prejudice to the generality of foregoing power. Accordingly, the State Government has prescribed method of recruitment, conditions of services. However, Rule 12 of G.O.Ms.No.1 Education [PS.2). Department dated 01.01.1994 is not silent of selection process of feaching and non-teaching staff, as envisaged in Rule 12(1), (2) and (3) of the Rules. Hence, under Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, the State is under a constitutional obligation and according to it, the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all the * (2002) 5 ALT 96 (DB) HAC3 & MSM at WH 28912 of 2018 & batch 3O0(1} of the Constitution of India. Further, it is contended that, the Government amended Rule 12 only to regulate the procedure and te bring meritorious qualified teachers into the minority educational institutions to impart good qualitative education to the teachers. It is further contended that, the government is only appointing teachers, whereas, the overall control of the managernent, administration, cisciplinary action on the teachers still vest with the munority institution, The State Government wanted to ensure uniform Standards in teachers throughout the states. Therefore, there is reasonable nexus to the object sought to be achieved i.e. anly to censure that proper teachers are selected in the interest of the students and this cannot be said to be interference with the management of the minority institutions. If, highly qualified teachers are selected, learning capacity of the children will be increased on account of selecting the best teachers arnong the candidates appearing fer the posts, Therefore, amendment to Rule 12 cannot be said to be interference with the management or administration of the minority educational institutions. It is further contended that, as per amended Rule 12, the Government issued state wide notifications for appomtment of teachers, which includes teachers belonging to minority community also and this will ensure timely filling up of the vacancies and there will be uniformity throughout the State. This step will address major malpractice i.e. after lifting of ban, respondents have received several complaints stating that appointment or promotion of teachers was taken up by backdoor method wherein the teachers are not up to the mark. This being a serious problem, prompted the Government to take care of the selection process by amending Rule 12 and that the cy on ot tae HACE & MSM J WP 28912 af 2018 & batch : ss without any basis. The respondents further contended that the State issued G.O.Ms.No.] Minorities Welfare (M&R) Department dated 16.01.2004 framing certain guidelines for issuing Minority Status Certificate for making admissions and appointments in Minority Educational Institutions. As per Guideline No. (5), the educational institutions established and managed by the minorities shall serve the educational needs of their community to which they claim by Alling up not less than 70% of seats being filed up by the Managements as per the rules governing admission into various colleges with the candidates belonging to the respective minority community. This Court called for report from the education department as to such educational institutions which is tabulated as under: Sl.No | Case No | Name of the | Whether | Total na. No of petitioner school af minority has | students | students minority certificate t} | W.PLNo. 28924 /2018 | Sri Vyasasramar, NA 216 0 yerpediu, Chittoor District 2) , Convention of Na 63 Q Baptist Churches of the Norther Circars (CBCNC) 3) } W.P.No.29026/2018 | AFDT High School NA 274 G : Gnaniketan EM A | NA 1233 NA TM Aided Schoen] 3} Rasturidevi Girls NA 23t} NA Theh Scheol 6) Guild of Service NA 204 NA Aided Schools ; va Ester Axene res. | Minority S41 0 High School 8) Ester axene res. | Mirsority 21] a Mlementary school 9) Nehru Aided Group | Minority 440 Q of Schools 10 | MLM. High School NA 116 0 11 Tabitha Idea Aided | Minority 138 6 ae igh School 12 S.R.H Aided i NA 22 Gj . . _... _flemertary school 13) W.P.No. 28912 /2018 Fein. ORAM, NA 54 5 Klementary school 14 SVP & SRV IR NA 179 oO Girls High School 15 _L DVPRA UP school NA 228 1 i : . . : : : : : : : : we sity ine v4 HAC & MSM J WP 28012 of SOLS & batch governing rules, as such, they are not entitled to claim Minority Status. Therefore, the petitioners in the above three writ petitions are not minority institutions and no certificate was issued to them. It is further contended that, as per the guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.1 Minorities Welfare (M&R) Department dated 16.01.2004, the minority status certificate issued by the competent authority shall be in force for a period of three years from the date of issuance and thereafter, it shall be renewed prior to its expiry period, by making application three months in advance. But, no such certificate waa obtained by most of the writ petitioners and as such, they cannot claim the minority status, unless the institution has been issued certificate by the competent authority and consequently, none of the petitioners are entitled to claim such status, as they failed ta produce munority status certificate. The respondents denied the contention of the petitioners that the right of minority institutions to fill the posts ot the persons belonging to their choice and that profess their religion is taken away, itis strongly contended by the respondents that, it is left open for the minority educational institutions to appoint competent persons to teach their religion. But, none of the petitioners filed ary affidavit along with the writ petitions to prove that they sre enjoying the minority status by virtue of declaration by the competent autharity. In the absence of any declaration by the competent authority with regard to minority status, the petitioners cannot automatically claim minority status. Therefore, it is cantended that, the amendment violates Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India is not true, as the petitioners failed to establish that those institutions were declared as minority institutions after issuing certificate of minority status as per HA MSM uf WP 28S 1 of 2018 & bare Department dated 30.06.2017 framing Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993 and they were continued as such. The minority educational institutions were permitted to appoint both teaching and non-teaching staff vice G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS.2) Department dated 01.01.1904. The said G.O was published in the A.P. Gazette om 03.01.1994. Rules 12 and 13 are relevant for the present, which deals with power of the minority institutions to appoint both teaching and non-teaching staff of their choice by following necessary procedure. While the matter stood thus, the Commissioner af School Education, A.P, [brahimpatnam addressed letter Re.No.90 /PS-1/2015 dated 24.08.2017 to the first respondent and in view of the said letter, Rule 12 of the Rules under G.O.Ms.No.1 Education {PS.2) Department dated 01.01.1994, as amended by G.O.Ms.No.40 School Education (PS) Department dated 30.06.2017 is again amended, taking away the powers of the minority educational institutions to administer and manage the educational institutions for appointing the teaching and non-teaching staff as per the procedure and usurped the power of the mistitution itself and omitted Rule 13 of the Rules, which indirectly takes away the power of the minority educational institutions which is nothing but interference with the right of minority educational institutions to administer and manage them by religious and linguistic minorities in terms of Article SO0(1) and such interference is prohibited, as it is violative of Article SO0(1) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on umpteen number of judgments in support of their contentions which will be referred at the appropriate stage. hee oe RAGS & MSM. WPRL28972 of 2018 & batch named with minorities, they are claiming to be minority educational institutions, and they are not entitled protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India, unless, they establish that these institutions were recognized as minority educational institutions in terms of procedure prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.1 'Education {(PS.2} Department dated 01.01.1994 and obtained a certificate of renewal from time te time. In the absence of such recognition and renewal of it, once every three years, as contemplated under G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS.2) Department dated 0 1.01.1994, the petitioners are disentitled to claim protection under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further contended that, the educational institutions being run by the petitioners are not satisfying the rules ler recognizing the institutions and furnished information as to the students belonging to different categories prescribing status in the institution and on the strength of the information, it is contended that none of the institutions acquired the status of minority institutions to Claim benefit under Article 30 of the Constitution of India. On this ground alone, learned counsel for the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. It is also further contended that, the "State can Impose reasonable restrictions on the power of the educational institutions to regulate the appointment and to achieve Excellency in education. The Steps taken by the State amending Rule 12 and omitting Rule 13 of the Rules by G.O.Ms.No.43 School Edu cation (PS) Department dated 09.08.2018 is nothing but to achieve the real objective ie. to provide good education to the students prosecuting studies in the petitioners- educational institutions and to select highly qualified and meritorious me vite Lee HAC & MSM. WFR 28912 of 2018 & batch framed thereunder. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that, such power has to be exercised to frarme rules under any enactment of Sections 78 and 99 of A.P. Education Act. The rule making power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is not available to the State and non-compliance of the procedural requirements under Section 99(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act would render the rules of 2018 vide G.O.Ms.No.43 School. Education (PS} Department dated 09.08.2018 illegal and Hable to be struck down, The 2018 Rules are notified by G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS) Department dated 09.08.2018 and the power to issue such G.O., amending the rules is conferred under Sections 78 and 99 of the AP. Education Act, besides the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of Inelia. Section 78 of the A.P. Education Act deals with Constitution of Educational Service and according to it, (1} Notwithstanding anything in this Act or the rules made hereunder, the Government may, by nolikcation, constitute any officer or class of officers or any teacher or class of teachers appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act. "Notification" means a notification published in the State Gazette and the word 'notified' shall be construed accordingly. Section 98 of the A.P. Education Act deals with power of government to make rules and Clause {1}(a) save that the Government may by notification make rules to carry out all or any of the purposes of the A.P. Education Act. 21 HAC & MSM. WPL28912 af POLS ® bath = SY Section GCS) is applicable to the 2018 Rules also and, as a result, these Rules should, immeciately after it is issued, be laid before each House of the State Legislature if it is in Session. The earlier session of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature conchaced when the House was adjourned sine-die. Thereafter no session of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature has been convened so far. The 2018 Rules were made and notified in Gio Ms: No.43 on 09.08.2018, and was published in the Andhra Pradesh State Gazette. After the Rules were made on 06.06.2018. rie Session of either House of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature has been convened till date. As the Sie a fe Legislature is not in Session, the requirement of Section 99(3) of the ALP) Education Act, for the rules to be laid before each House of the State Lemeslature, is tneapable of compliance till the next Session ofeach House of the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature is convened. = ant, fram Section 9G 1)(aj of the AJP. Kducation Act, As is Evid the Rules rade thereunder would came into force from the date of its publications in the State: 'Gaze tie. since ihe 2018 Rules were published! in the Aridlira Pradesh State Gazette, they came into force The Rules are valid from the date on which th ey are en the same cd: mace. oN onecordpli ane swith the laying clause, i n Section O9(3) af the ALP. Relucation Aol d pee not alfect the validity of the Rule or make it | void, As it canne be: regarded as mandatory. (KAT. Plantation {P} Ltd. oy. State. of Karnataka), When a SUSLUILES requires the Rules ta be pl abed before the : State Lerislature, itis the obligation ot the State to ESE Place Che saris before the House at the earliest. However, the atnssian ta camply with it would not affect the valid ity of the Rules cand their' eninge int force, (KOR. Plantation (P) Ltd; Quarry PROLTPH ROS TROT) PEGE (ei ala Mh oe, 44 oS ve oa eh a ered: Shes z 2 : $ t i HACS & MSM.) WP 28012 pf 2018 & batch before the House at all, even then nen-compliance with the requirement of laying the Rules before the legislature, would not be a ground to declare the Rules, framed under the Statu te, ultra vires and invalid, (Veneet Agrawal v. Union of India?; Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Bagban®*; Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd.©: Hukam Chand®*'; Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar!§; and Prohibition & Excise Suptd., A.P. v. Toddy Tappers Coop. Society!!}.. Where a statutory provision is directory, Courts would not interfere to compel the performance or punish breach of the duty created by such provision, and disobedience of such a provision would not entail any invalidity (Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edn., at p. 229; Tulsiram Patel?s), The same set of facts came up for consideration before the High Court of Jucicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh in Chidurala sudakar v. The State of Telangana!?, wherein, the Division Bench of dthe Court laid down the above principles. The difference is only the notifications issued by two different State Governments, in identical circumstances. The law laid down by the common High Court Le. High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh is a binding precedent on High Court of Andhra Pradesh, after its division from High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh. A simular issue came up before this Court in M. Subbarayudu v. The Statels, wherein it was held that the law declared by the Macias High 22007] 18 SCC Lis 1072003) 2 8C0 72] '1 (2003) 12 SCO 738 "2018 (4) ALT 579 *S AIR 1955 AP 7 ot RAC & MSM. WP_2BS12 of 2038 & latch The petitioners who are claiming to be minority educational institutions filed these petitions challenging G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS} Department dated 09.08.2018, whereby, Rule 12 is amended and Rule 13 is omitted from the Rules. By virtue of Section 99 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, the State Government framed Rules under G.O.Ms.No.1 Education {(PS.2) Department dated 01.01.1994, known as Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993. The Rules provides various procedures for establishment, recognition of minority institutions and its administration inchuding appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff. But, for the present, Rule 12 and Rite 13 of the Rules are relevant for consideration of this Court, as Rule 12 was amended and Rule 13 was omitted by G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS} Department dated 09.08.2018 are challenged before this Court. The difference between original Rule and the amended/ormitted Rule is tabulated as follows: Rule 12 Original Rule 12 as amended by G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018 *12. Procedure for filling up of the posts in Alded Institutions: {i} The educational agency shall appoint staff as per the staffing pattern prescribed by Government from thre ta time. All staff shall corderm to the | !. The merit-cum-roster based qualifications prescribed by the i recruitment system as is existing be Government from time te time. corntinved. There shall be ai separate roster system for each school. The posts (2) All the staff teaching as well as non- teaching shall be recruited through. stelf selectinr committee to be constituted by the educational agency in accordance with these rules. (8) All the posts shall be advertised in at least two News Papers having large circulation ef which one shall be in Telugu. (A) Before filling up of the aided shall be fled up accordingly. However this shall mot apply to minority educational institution only if they are selecting a candidate belonging to the corcerned minority community. Where such a candidate is fitted against a vacaney belanging to S.C./S.T., then the | S.C./S.T vacancy shall be carried forwarded to the next recruitment. HAC OS MSM LL WP 36912 af 2018 & batch x. Educational tribunal fas and when | Education shall nominate the person fo constituted) and without reference to | look after the entire recruitment competent authority or the Government. | process." However, in the proceclure respect of aided posts, the provision of sub rule (4) (5} shall apply. (8) All appointments mele cither teaching er non-teaching staff by suded oY unaided institutions shall be subject ta the appraval of the campetent authority, Far this purpose the | ecucational agency shell inform the competent authority within one-month the selection. The Competent Authority shall grant approval unless the selection. has been i violation of these rules. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the educational agency to remind the competent authority one month efter the initial communication, if RO appraval is received. The burden of proof of having communicated the | selection to the competent authority shall He with the educational agency. (9) The educational agency shall make appointinent only on the approval as per sub-rule (S$) above. (10) Nothing in this rule shall prevent an etlucational agency from making a tenaporary appointment in a casual vacancy of unaided post previded that such appointment is not for a period exceeding 60 days. 13. Staff Selection Committee, Rule 13 Original --_ Rule 13 Omitted LS. Staff Selection Committee: In the said rules, the rule 13 shali be omitted. ' {1} The Staff Selection Comunittee for the purpose of Niling up of an aichecl past other than promotion shail consist of the following persons as membera. fa} President of educational agency or His nominee. (b) Headmaster, who is ex efficio Correspondent / Secretary / Manager of the Institution. {c} Two subject experts, te be selected by the educational agency from the panel approved by the Pistrict Educational Officer, Of these at least ane should be the Heacl Master of a recognized school, id} An officer of the Education Department not below the rank of Deputy Eeucational Officer nominated by the District Eeucational Officer. ay oa. (24) The President of the educational gency can either be the Chairman, or nerninate one of the members of the Staff Selection Committee to be the Chairman. {3} The querum for the Staff Selection Committee meetings shali be four of which the presence of District Education HAC & MSM! WR 289012 of YOE8 & batch But, as per Sub-Rule (7) of original Rule 12, G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS2} Department, dated 01.01.1994, the Educational Agency shall be free to appaint employvee/ staif to an un-aided past as per subject requirement, provided they have the prescribed qualification to hold the posts. As per Sub-Rule (8) of Rule 12, all appointments mace either teaching or non-teaching staff by aided or un-aided institutions shall be subject to the approval of the competent authority. For this purpose the educational agency shall inform the competent authority within one-month from the date of selection. The Competent Authority shall grant approval, unless, the | selection has been in violation of these rules. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the educational agency to rernind the competent authority, one month after the initial communication, if no approval is received. Thus, prior to "G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS) Department dated 09.08.2018, the power to recruit or appoint ary teaching or non-teaching posts in rainority educational institution is subject to approval of competent authority. But, on account of amendment to Rule 12 by G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS) Department dated 09.08.2018, the power of the minority educational institutions is totally taken away and vested on an officer, not below the rank of Additional Director in the office of Commissioner of School Education. Rule 13 is totally omitted, since such power to recruit or appoint teaching or rion-teaching staffis vested with the departmental officials te. Additional Directer in the office of Cormmissioner of School Ecucation., It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the writ petitions that, on account of amendment to Rule 12 by HACJ & MSM WP 28012 of 2918 & hatch Article SO(1) is intended to instill confidence in minorities against any executive or legislative encroachment on their right ta establish and administer educational institution of their choice. Article 30(1) though styled as a right, is more in the nature of protection for minorities. But for Article 30, an educational institution, ever: though based on religion or language, could have been comtrolled or regulated by law enacted under Clause (6) of Article 19, and so, Article 30 was enacted as a guarantee to the minorities that so far as the religious or linguistic minorities are concerned, educational institutions of their choice will enjoy protection from such legislation. To some extent, what may be permissible by way of restriction under Article 19(6) may fall foul of Article 30 of the Constitution. This is the additional protection which Article 30{1) guaranteed to the minorities. Phe expression "right to establish and administer? has gained importance, in view of the real controversy between the parties. The expression has to be interpreted in harmony with the substance of the night conferred by Article 30{1), while Article 201) wives a cultural or linguistic minority community the right to conserve its language or culture, Article 30(1) confers religious or linguistic minorities, the right to establish educational institutions of their awn choice, for, it is through the education of the children that the group culture can be maintained. But the scope and object of Article 30(1) is wider than the mere conservation of the culture, script, etc., which is indicated by the word 'choice'. The right is to establish institutions which will elfectively serve the needs of the community and the scholars who resort' to' such institutions. The right would be nugatory if the HAC & MEMO WF _ 289 b2 of 2078. & bateh Society and another v. State of Gujarat}4 and All Saints High School v. Government of A.P15), such as- (aj fo maintain the educational character and standard of such institution eg to lay down qualifieatians or conditions of service to secure appointment of good teachers, to ensure interests af students, to maintain a fair standard of teaching; {b) to ensure orderly, efficient and sound administration and to prevent maladmuinistration and to secure its proper functioning as an educational institution, to ensure that its funds are spent for the betterment of education and not for axtranecus purposes; {c) io prevent anti-national activity' (a) ta enforce the general laws of the land, applicable to all persons, e.g., taxation, sanitation, social welfare, economic regulations, public arder, maoralnty. fel Ta prescribe syllabus, curriculum of study and regulate the appointment of teachers. {vide Virendra Nath Gupta v. Dethi Administrations} (} Toa ensure efficiency and discipline of the institution. such regulations may be made either by legislation or by executive order, tut the right of the management of such an institution to appoint the Principal of its own choice cannot be taken away by ary rules and regulation, Since the right to 'administer' confers upon the minority institutions the night to manage the institution, and the right conferred by Clause (1) 1s absolute, no 'restriction' can be imposed by the State on the right of the minority cormmunity to manage the institution. (vide St. Xavier's College v. State of Gujarat referred supra} / The whole controversy is with regard to taking away the right to 'Administer' by an officer in the cadre of Additional Director in the aifice of the Commissioner of Schoal Education, as the amended Rule 12 vide G.O.Ms.No.43 School Education (PS) Department dated "AIR 1994 SC 1389 * AIR 1980 SC 2042 *S AIR 1990 SC 1449 &., HAC & MSMJ WP 289232 af 201% & batch fi) the test of reasonableness and rationality, fii} the test that the regulation would be conducive to making the mstitution an effective vehicle of education for the minarity community or other persons wha resort to it, and fli that there is no in-road on the protection conferred by Article 30(1) af the Constitution, that is, by framing the regulation the essential character af the uistitution being a minority educational gistitution, is not taken, away. (vide P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra!7} To what extent, the State can regulate the administration and what is the permissible limit to interfere with the administration and management of minority educational institutions is again a question. An identical question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in The Secretary, Malankara Syrian catholic College v. T. Jose and others*®. The Apex Court while dealing with the extent of regulation by the State, permissible in respect of employees of minority educational imstitations receiving aid fram the State, laid down. the folowing guidelines: {ij the minimum qualifications, experience and other criteria bearing on merit, for making appointments, (ii) the service conditions of employees without interfering with the overall administrative control by the Management over the staff. {iii} a mechanism for redressal of the grievances of the employees. {iv) the conditions for the proper utilisation of the aid by the educational institutions, without abridging or di luting the right to establish and administer educational institutions. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, the power of the State to regulate the administration is limited and, recruitment and appointments are not included in the guidelines issued by the "" (2005) 6 SCC $37 * AIR 2007 SC S70 WAC & MSM WE 28912 of 2018 & batch management of educational institutions, since, the nile takes away the power of the management to recruit and appoint teaching and non-teaching staff. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contentions, placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in In re The Kerala Education Bil, 1957, Special Reference No.1 of 195820, Rev. Father W. Proost and others wv. The State of Bihar and others?1, The Ahmedabad St. Xavier College Society and another v. State of Gujarat (referred Supra}, All Saints High School v. Government of A.P (referred Supra}, The Secretary, Malankara Syrian catholic College v. T. Jose and others (referred supra], IVY C. Da Conceicao v. State of Goa and others?2, Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathews, N. Ammad v. Manager, Emjay High School and others?+ and judgment of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Medern High School, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra}. In re The Kerala Education Bill, 1987, Special Reference No.l of 1958 (referred Supra}, several questions came up for consideration before the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court. But, the main dispute before the Constitutional Bench was, as to extent to which the Government can interfere with admissions im minority educational institutions. The judgment did not: directly deal with the issue of interference with appointments and recruitment, However, the consistent view expressed by the Constitutional Bench consisting of Eleven Judges is that, the State can interfere with administration only to regulate admissions and service conditions of employees. "AIR 1958 Supreme Court 956 {v 45 C136) " AIR. 1969 Supreme Court 465 (Vv 56 30) " (2017) 3 Supreme Court Cases 619 "* (2017) 15 Supreme Court Cases 595 (2998) 6 Supreme Court Casas 6724 ad at HAG & MSM. WR 289172 of 2018 & bach elements in the shape of representatives of different type are brought in. The calm waters of an institution will not only be disturbed but also mixed. These provisions in Section 33A (1) (a) cannot therefore apply to minority institutions. In All Saints High School v. Government of A.P (referred supra), the Apex Court considered varigus aspects ag to the admission into minority educational institutions and rights of the minorities to establish educational institutions. The Corstitutional Bench of the Apex Court held that, Article 30(1) of the Constitution of india enshrines a fundamental right of the minority institutions to manage and administer their educational institutions which is completely in consonance with the secular nature of our democracy and the Directives contained in the Constitution itself. That although unlike Article 19 the right conferred on the minorities is absolute, unfettered and unconditional but this does not mean that this right gives a free licence for maladministration so as to defeat the avowed object of the Article, mamely, to advance excellence and perlection in the field of education. While the State or any other atatutory authority has no right to imterfere with the internal administration or management of the minority institution, the State can certainly take regulatory measures to promote the efficiency and excellence of educational standards and issue guidelines for, the purpose of ensuring the security of the services of the. teachers or other employees of the institution. At the same time, however, the State or any University authority cannot under the cover or garb of adopting regulatory measures tend ta destroy the administrative autonomy of the institution or start interfering willy nilly wi th the core of the management of the institution so as to render the right of the ws q &M af WR 289 L2 of 2018 & batch er the University to frame rules and regulations governing the conditions of service of teachers in order ta secure their tenure of service and ta appoint a high authority armed with sufficient guidance to see that the said rules are not violated or the members of the stall are not arbitrarily treated or innocently victimised. In such a case the purpose is not to interfere with the internal adrninistration or autonomy of the institution, but it is merely to improve the excellence and efficiency of the education because a really good education can be received only if the tone and temper of the teachers are sa framed as to make them teach the students with devotion and dedication and put them above all controversy. But while setting up such an authority care must be taken to see that the said authority is not given blanket and uncanalised and arbitrary powers so as ta act at their own sweet will ignoring the very spirit and objective of the institution. It would be better if the authority concerned associates the members of the governing body or ite namirnee in its deliberation so as to instil confidence in the founders of the institution or the committers constituted by them. Thus, the State can impose certain regulations for pretection of teachers, but cannot interfere with the administration and management of the minority educational institutions by passing any regulation, since, it is violative of Article 300) of the Constitution of India. Sumilarly, in The Secretary, Malankara Syrian catholic College v. T. Jose and others (referred supra}, the Apex Court discussed the scope of Article 30{1} of the Constitution of India and administration of educational institution by minorities as follows: RAGS & MSM. WP 28912 of 2018 & batch rights conferred in Part II of the Constitution are subject ta, at least, other provisions of the said Part. It is difficult to comprehend that the framers of the Constitution would have given such an absolute right to the religious or linguistic minorities, which wowild enable them to establish and administer educational institutions in a manner so as to be in conflict with the other Parts of the Constitution. It is not the law that in the establishment and administration of educational institutions by the religious and linguistic minorities, no law of the land, even the Constitution, is to apply to them. The right to administer does not include the right to maladminister. It has alsa been held that the right to administer is not absolute, but must be subject to reasonable regulations for the beriefit of the institutions as the vehicle of education, consistent with national interest. General aws of the land applicable to all persons have been held to be applicable to the minority institutions also for example, laws relating to taxation, sanitation, social welfare, ecotiornic regulation, public arder and morality. Even though the words of Article 30(1} are unqualified, this Court has held that at least certain other laws of the land pertaining to health, morality and standards of education apply. The right under Article 30(1) is not absolute. There is no reason why regulations or conditions concerning, generally, the welfare af students and teachers should not be made applicable in order to provide a proper academic atrnosphere: as such provisions de not in any Way interfere with the right of administration or management under Article 30(1), Laws of the land, incliding rules and regulations, must apply equally to the majority institutions as well as to the minority institutions. Se far as the statutory provisions regulating ta administration are concerned, in case af an undided minority educational institution, the regulatory measure of control pee HACJ & MSM WE _ 98912. of 2018 & batch In Modern High School, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra}, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad had an occasion to deal with the issue of appointment in a minority educational institution, wherein the Division Bench held that, the right to appoint is part of the Management which is guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and the employers have a right to choose the teachers for minority educational institutions, however, the State can regulate their appointment with regard to their qualifications. For instance, ifa minority institution wants to appoint a perso who is not qualified ta be a teacher, the State can always intervene because the ultimate aim is to impart education and achieve excellence. These institutions cannot be allowed to be run by unqualified persons but at the same time aiter having laid down the criteria the State cannot impose its own appointees on the institutions which would clearly be an interference in management. In the facts of the above judgement, appointment of staff in minority educational institutions came up for consideration, in terms af powers corferred on the Government, under Section 99 of the ALP. Educational Institutions Act, 1982 and rules framed by the government by G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P82) Department, dated 0 101.1994, Rule 12 was amended giving retrospective effect with effect from 05.08.1998, taking away the power of the mincarity educational institutions for appointment of staff. The Division Bench of the High Court held that, G.O. contravenes the right of managements of the Educational institutions guaranteed wvnder Article S0(1) of the Coristitution of India, since it amounts to depriving HAQS & MBMJ WP 2BOT2 af 2018 G& batch uufringement of right to property under Article 19(1H® oof the Constitution of India. The Apex Court also observed that, Article 3G(1} provides that all minorities have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice, and Article 3Q0(2) enjoins the State, In granting aid to educational institutions not to discriminate against any educational institution on the ground that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or janguage. Clause (2) is only a phase of the non-disctimination clause of the Constitution and does not derogate from the provisions made in Clause (1). The clause is moulded in negative terms: the State is thereby enjoined not to discriminate in grating aid to educational institutions on the ground that the managetnent of the institution is in the harids of a minarity, religious or linguistic, but the form is not susceptible of the inference that the State is competent otherwise to discriminate so as to impose restrictions upon the substance of the right tao establish and administer educational institutions by minorities, religious or linguistic. The Court also held that, unlike Article 19, the fundamental freedom under Clause (1) of article 30, is absolute In terms: it is not made subject to any reasonable restrictions of the nature the fundamental freedoms enunciated in article 19 may be subjected to. All minorities, linguistic or religious have by Article SOQ(1} an absolute right to establish and aciminister educational institutions of their choice: and any law or executive direction which secks to infringe the substance of that right under Article 30(1) would to that extent be void. This, however, is not to say that it is not open to the State to impose regulations upon the exercise of this right. The fundamental freedom is to establish and to administer educational institutions « it is a tight to establish and administer what are in truth educational in stitutions, institutions ia HAC & MSMd WE 28912 of 2018 & hatch staff (both teaching and non-teaching) and administrative control over them, the management should have the freedom and there should nat be any external controlling agency. But such institutions should have affiliation to a University or Board; and a rational procedure for the selection of teaching staff and for taking disciplinary action has to be evolved by the management itself, In PA. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra (referred supra}, the Apex Court once again reiterated the principle laid down in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (referred supra} and culled out the following principles: fj) The right of minorities to establish and aciminister educational institutions of their choice comprises the following rights: aj To choose its governing body in whom the founders of the misltution have faith and confidence to conduct and manage the affairs of the institution; b) To appoint teaching staff (Teachers/ Lecturers and Head- masters/ Principals} as also non-teaching staff and ta take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any of its eryHouyees; , c) To admit eligible students of their choice and to set up a reasonable fee structure; , aj To use its properties and assets for the benefit of the institution; " (i) The right conferred on minorities under Article 30 is only te ensure equality with the majority cowl not intended te place the minorities in a more advantageous position vis--vis the majority.. There is na reverse discrimination in favour af minorities. The general laws of the land relating to national interesi, national security, 'social welfare, public order, morality, health, sanitation, taxation étc applicable to all, will equally apply to minority institutions also. fii) The right to establish and administer educational institutions is not absolute. Nar does tt include the right to maladminister. There can be regulatory measures for ensuring educational character and standards and maintaining academic excellence. There can he checks on admuustration as are necessary fo ensure that the administration is efficient and sound, sa as to serve the academic needs of the imstitution, Regulations made by the State concerning generally the welfare of students and teachers, regulations laying down eligibility crdena and qualifications for appointment, as also.conditions of service of employees (both teaching and non-teaching), regulations to prevent HAC & MSM WP 289 12 of 2018 & batch the Principal is an important part of the right to administration and even if the institution is aided, there can be no interference with the said right. The fact that the post of the Principal/Headmaster is also covered by State aid, will make no difference. In view of the long line of perspective pronouncements the law declared by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred supra, the right under Article 30(1} of the Constitution of India, though not absolute, the Government is competent to formulate certain regulations for the benefit of teachers, students, teaching and non- teaching stalf to achieve the excellence in education and cannot interfere with their right in appointing teaching and non-teaching staff, since it exclusively vests with the management of the institution, Such interference is violative of the fundatnental right guaranteed under Article 30(1} of the Constitution of India. Turning to the facts of the present case, in view of G.O.Ms.No.] Education (PS.2) Department dated 01.01.1994, certain procedure ig preseribed and the rule conferred power on the management of the munority institutions to appoint teaching and hon-teaching staff, while Stating that such selection or appointment of both teaching and non- teaching staffis subject to approval by the competent authority. Garher an attempt was made by the State to whittle dawn the right conferred on the minority institutions and to hyack the power of administration and management of the minority educational institutions and passed G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 02.11.1999, which was the subject matter in Modern High School, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. Government of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra}. Be HAG & Mant WH Y8912 of 2016 & batch the State. According to Clause (2), woon issue of a notification under sub-section (1}, the Government shall have power to make rules to regulate the classification, methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of the members of the educational service thereby constituted and such rules may vest jurisdiction in relation to such service in the Government or in such authority or authorities, as may be prescribed. In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the power of this State, but, the above provision cannot be applied to minority educational institutions, since such rule : is violative of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India, as establishment of minority institutions of religious or linguistic minorities and its administration and management is absolute, subject to reasonable restrictions as referred to in the Judgments referred to above. But, in the euise of Section 78 of the AVP. Education Act, the rights of minority educational institutions cannot be hyacked in the name of guidelines or regulations issued by the State. Therefore, we hold that the conten tion of the learned Government Pleader sans merit. it is also contended by the learned Government Pleader for Education that, the Government is only appointing teachers whereas the overall control of management, disciplinary action on teachers still vests with the minority institutions. When the Government is the appointing authority, the minority institutions aré not competent to have disciplinary jurisdiction over the employees working in the munority educational institutions. The appointing authority alone is the disciplinary authority in normal course of everits. if, for any reason, appointments are made by the State, the disciplinary action HAG! & MSM,O WP_O8912 af 2013 & Batch taking away the right of administration of minority ecucational institutions from its management. A similar vain attempt was made by the State earlier by issuing G.O.Ms.No.76 dated 02.11.1999, The said G.O was challenged before the High Court in Medern High School, Zamisthanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad v. Goverament of Andhra Pradesh (referred supra}, wherein the Division Bench struck down the same as being unconstitutional. Despite striking down the G.Q, the first respondent again repeated the same mistake, and tried to hyack the power of administration from the minority educational institutions, in utler violation of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of Department dated 09.08.2018 infringes the fundamental! right of the minority institutions, the same is liable to be struck down. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the: petitioners and against the respondents. POINT NO.3 Though the respondents raised several contentions with regard tO iminarity status of the petitioners, this Court, in the present petitions carmot decide the same, as the canstitutional validity af G.O.Ms.No.43 is itself challenged before this Court and if this Court strikes dewn the G.O, which is applicable only to the minority echicational institutions whether aided. However, only the minority / educational institutions who obtained certificate from the competent authorities as defined under Section 4(i\fa) of the National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004, which deal with establishment, recognition and administration of minority educational institutions providing an appeal against the order passed OS rs ok, beats. beret £ 4 10. The Regional Joint Director to School Education, Guntur Dist. 11. The Regional Joint Director to School Education, Krishna District. 12. The Regional Joint Director to School Education, Kadapa District. 13. The Regional Joint Director to School Education, Visakhapatnam Dist. 14. The District Educational Officer, Guntur, 15. The District Educational Officer, Krishna District. 16. The District Educational Officer, Machillpatnarm, Nellore Dist. 17. The District Educational Officer, Kadapa District 18. The District Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam. 19. The Educational Officer, Srikakulam 20.9 LR Copies 21. The Under Secretary, Union of India Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 22. The Secretary, Advocate Association Library, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 23.6 CCs to Sri. Ch. Samson Babu, Advocate (OPUC) 24. One CC to Sri. G. Rama Sharma, Advocate (OPUC) 25, One CC to Sri. Aka Vankataramana, Advocate (OPUC} 26.3 CCs to Sri. N. Subba Rao , Advocate (OPUC) 27.One CC to Sri. N. Bharat Babu, Advocate (QPUC) 28.2 CCs to Sri. M. Sri Vijay, Advocate (OPUC} 29.QOne CC to Sri.K. Rama Mohan , Advacate {(OPUC) 30. One CC to Sri.P.V.S.S.S. Rama Rao, Advocate (OPUC} 31.2 CCs to Sri. T.V.S. Kumar, Advocate (QOPUC). 32. One CC to Sri. M._R. Tagore, Advocate (OPUC). 33.One CC to Sri. N. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate (OPUC) 34. Two.CCs to the GP for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (QUT) 35. Two CCs to the GP for Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (QUT) 36. Two CCs to the GP for General Administration, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. (QUT) 37. Two CD Copies. bad 2 AHHH = § . s 8 x HIGH COURT § QSSNSNy, 8 s Sy, § gs § Ss . § s \ s oe s \ y x ee g§* x s a . § \ s -- oa v g 8 3 Fh = > \ x g g oe a § 8 x 8 SS 8 = y 3 s s y SS se 8 s X s g 3 8 s = Lo g = St oe x ¢ x Ss x - gry \ Bo. nS - XN YO. s . os x x FF & \ 3s gs \ y § SY AS a" x y & s\ Saag oa x ¥ § $8 a X s Xan & ae x x : gf 2 y § : Af & s : ? Se \ & x g oa a x g a xX g y g cS X s X ss \ Fo x s Y wy 4 s X s x sk a oO, x : x a cS SS X s x os cS : \ \ a * oe e s \ <S rs ss 3 x oo § s os Seo § x 3 3 3 s 3s e oe \ 8 Na a gs os § 3? oe 8 3 = 33 CS we os ow Ss os 3 rr S ~ oe we ORDER
WP.Nos. 28912, 28924, 29026, 29470, 30456, 32262, et 32315, 32337, 33200, 33421, 33478, 34160, 34229, 35133, ene ht?"
37838, 43104, 45079, 45521 and 32808 of 2018 "
Allowing the WPs \ Sg . Y 8 Without costs. 2 Se f° SN 8 x 3 fy & & SI e «fs £ SPX y Aske?
Ne s Yeisen Ns s gor | SS ee ¥ "Ce 8 a