Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.26 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 79 in Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 21 in Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 [Entire Act]
P.R. Venkataiah vs A.P. Co-Op. Central Agriculture ... on 17 November, 1989
5. Sri K. Satyanarayana Rao, appearing for the respondents, contends that this school is affiliated to the C.B.S.E. It does not receive grants either from the State Government or from the Central Government. It is not govered by A.P. Education Act (Act 1 of 1982), The judgment of Justice Jeevan Reddy in the earlier writ petition is a complete answer for all the contentions raised in this Writ petition. The decision in P.H. Venkataiah v. A.P. Co-op. Central Agricultural Dev. Bank Ltd. (3supra) has no application to the facts of the case, as a co-operative institution performs public functions and it is funded and controlled by Government. In their present case, no statutory rule is violated in terminating the services of the petitioner. He also relies upon judgment in W.P. Nos. 9275 and 18380 of 1987 dated 15-6-1990 rendered buy Justice Neeladri Rao, J. stating that a society-school is not a State. Hence no writ would lie.
Anandi Mukta Sadguru Shree Mukta ... vs V.R. Rudani & Ors on 21 April, 1989
12. The petitioner's advocate strongly relies upon Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru S.M.V.S.J.M.S. Trust v. V.R. Rudani (2 supra). That decision deals with a case of teachers of an affiliated college run by a public trust who were receiving salaries as per the U.G.C. regulations and the award given by the Vice Chancellor and the institution is one which was receiving grants from the State Government. It was subjected to the administrative control of U.G.C. as well as the University. There were Acts and Regulations governing the institution. When the college refused to pay scales of pay as prescribed by the University Grants Commission, there was a dispute and an award was given by the University Vice-Chancellor and instead of implementing the award, the management of the Trust took the decision to close down the college and surrendered the affiliation of the college and it failed to pay the due salary and allowances, Provident Fund and gratuity. Then the affected teachers of the college filed a writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus. Various contentions were raised including the contentions that the institution is a private institution and hence a writ petition would not lie. The High Court rejected all these contentions and granted relief to the teachers. Then the Trust approached the Supreme Court by way of a special leave. In such a background, the Supreme Court had to deal with the question whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable. In paragraph 14 at page 1611, the Supreme Court observed as follows:
A.P. Johns Paulraj vs Central Board Of Secondary Education, ... on 2 March, 1990
14. The respondent's advocate placed strong reliance upon the judgment of Justice Jeevan Reddy and upon a decision reported in A.P. John Paulraj v. Central Board of Secondary Education (4 supra).