IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V tih M THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE /T‘V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14058 OF 2025 Between: 1. Aided Bapuji Primary School, Rep.by its Manager and Correspondent Sri P.Ram Prasad S/o late P.Ramachandraaiah Aged about 62 years, R/o Pushadapu vari palem Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District, A.P - 522 268 2. A.B High School, Rep.by its Manager and Correspondent Sri P.Ram Prasad S/o late P.Ramachandraaiah Aged about 62 years, R/o Pushadapu vari palem Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District, A.P - 522 268 3. S.M.A.U.P School, Rep.by its Manager and Correspondent Sri Ch.Y.Murahari Rao S/o Varaprasada Rao Aged about 55 years, R/o Cherukupalli Cheurukupalli Mandal, Guntur District Andhra Pradesh - 522 309 ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by Principal Secretary to Government School Education Department A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 238 2. The Commissioner and Director School Education Department, D.No.398/3, Vidhya Bhavan Venkatadri Towers, Near Happy Resorts Athmakur (V), Mangalagiri (M) Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 503 3. The Regional Director School Education Department, Collectorate Compound, Guntur, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 4. The District Educational Officer, Collectorate Compound, Guntur Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 5. The District Educational Officer, Science and Arts College Ground Bapalta, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh 6. The Deputy Educational Officer, Bapalta Division, Bapatia Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh 7. The Mandal Educational Officer, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatia District Andhra Pradesh - V ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents especially the 4th and Sthsrespondents in orally insisting the petitioner schools to receive the applications and to conduct the computer based test (CBT), and not providing the list of the subject matter expers and may one not passing orders on the representations including the representations dated 24-03-2025 and 16-05-2025 as the same is arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, apart the same run contrary to the Education Act and the Rules made under G.O MS No.1, dated 01-01-1994, and the orders dated 09-05-2025 of this Hon'ble High Court in W.P No.7036 of 2025 and Batch, and in contravention of the Right to Education Act and the rules thereunder and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequentially direct the respondents not to insist for computer based test (CBT) teachers selection in the petitioner school, and to permit the petitioner school complete the recruitment process forthwith. made for lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to consider the representaiton s dated 24- 03-2025 and 16-05-2025, and pass orders as per law pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following order: APHC010279182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 14058/2025 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) Aided Bapuji Primary School and Others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1.LEO LAW ASSOCIATES LLP Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: 2 HCGR.l W.P.No.14058 of 2025 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents, especially the and 5“^ respondents in orally insisting the petitioner schools to receive the applications and to conduct the computer based test (CBT) and not providing the list of the subject matter experts and not passing orders on the representations including the representations dated 24-03-2025 and 16-05-2025 as the same is arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional, apart the same run contrary to the Education Act and the Rules made under G.O.MS.No.1, dated 01-01-1994, and the orders dated 09-05-2025 of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.7036 of 2025 and Batch and in contravention of the Right to Education Act and the rules made thereunder, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents not to insist for computer based test (CBT) for teachers selection in the petitioner school, and to permit the petitioner school complete the recruitment process forthwith and to pass....’’ 2. Heard, learned counsel on behalf of M/s Leo Law Associates appearing for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for School Education for the respondents. Learned Government Pleader for the respondents submits that as of now there is no proposal to conduct the Computer Based Test for the purpose of filling up the posts of Teachers and further he does not dispute that this Court in W.P.No.7700 of 2025 and batch vide order dated 09.05.2025 interdicted with the process of conducting the Computer Based Test, with a further direction to the official respondents to follow the procedure laid down under Rules 12 and 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 by completing the process within a period of three (03) weeks from today. 3. 3 HCCRJ W.P.No.14058 of 2025 In view of the same, the present writ petition is disposed of, in terms of the orders dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7700 of 2025 and batch. 4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. The Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order in W.P.No.7700 of 2025 and batch, dated 09.05.2025 to this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- G.HELA NAIDU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary to Government School Education Department A.P Secretariat, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 238 The Commissioner and Director School Education Department, D.No.398/3, Vidhya Bhavan Venkatadri Towers, Near Happy Resorts Athmakur (V), Mangalagiri (M) Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh - 522 503 2. 3. The Regional Director School Education Department, Collectorate Compund, Guntur Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 4. The District Educational Officer, Collectorate Compound, Guntur Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 5. The District Educational Officer, Science and Arts College Ground Bapalta, Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh The Deputy Educational Officer, Bapalta Division, Bapatia Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh 6. 7. The Mandal Educaitonal Officer, Cherukupalli Mandal, Bapatia District Andhra Pradesh. 8. One CC to M/s Leo Law Associates LLP Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CCs to GP for School Education, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 10. Three CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order in WP No. 7700 of 2025 and batch dated 09/05/2025) GSC HIGH COURT DATED:29/05/2025 ORDER WP.No.14058of2025 DISPOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS ‘HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + WRIT PETITION NOs: 7036. 7562, 7700. 7725. 7731. 7734. 8003, 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025 %09.05.2025 W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch #Between: SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU UPPER PRIMARY SPSUP SCHOOL Gudur, Tirupathi District erstwhile SPSR Nellore District S/o Late Masthanaiah Aged 58 years R/o D No 213917 N R Peta Guduru Tirupati District Rep by its Correspondent Manapati Ravindra Babu Petitioner/s $And: THE STATE OF AP Represented by its Secretary Education department Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District and others ....Respondents ICounsel for the Petitioners Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7562 of 2025, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P,Nos.7700, 7036, 7725, 7731, 7734, 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025;and Sri B. Sreeteja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Pavan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.8003 of 2025 ''Counsel for the Respondent : Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior ; Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, G.P for Education <Gist: >Head Note; ? Cases referred: NIL 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *** WRIT PETITION NOs: 7036. 7562, 7700. 7725. 7731. 7734. 8003. 8109 8481 & 9455 of 2025 W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch #Between: SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU UPPER PRIMARY SPSUP SCHOOL Gudur, Tirupathi District erstwhile SPSR Nellore District S/o Late Masthanaiah Aged 58 years R/o D No 213917 N R Peta Guduru Tirupati District Rep by its Correspondent Manapati Ravindra Babu Petitioner $And; THE STATE OF AP Represented by its Secretary Education department Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District and others ... .Respondent/Complainant DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.05.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? 1. Yes/No 2. Yes/No 3. Yes/No GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOs: 7036. 7562. 7700. 7725, 7731. 7734. 8003. 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7562 of 2025, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7700, 7036, 7725, 7731, 7734, 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025;and Sri B. Sreeteja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Pavan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.8003 of 2025 and Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader for Education. 2. These Writ Petitions have assailed the action of the Official Respondents herein which had introduced Online Test method for selecting and appointing Teachers in various Schools which are receiving Grant-in-aid. 3. For this purpose, the facts stated in the W.P.No.7562 of 2025 are referred to, inasmuch as Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the Writ Petitioners, has referred to the facts from the said Writ Petition. 4. The prayer sought in W.P.No.7562 of 2025 is as under: “...pleased to grant an order, direction or writ more so in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in R.C.NO.143/C2/2024 dt. 19.03.2025 issued by 4‘^respondent and consequential proceedings R.C.No.858/(A2) B1/2025 dt. 19.03.2025 issued by the 5^^respondent is illegal, arbitrary and run contrary to the Education act and the rules made under GO.MS No.1 dt. 1.01.1994 and in contravention of RTE act and 4 the rules made thereunder. To declare the actions of the respondents in issuing the proceedings in R.C No.143/C2/2024 dt. 19.03.2025 issued by 4th respondent and R.C.No.858/(A2) BI/2025 dt.19.03.2025 issued by 5th respondent is in conflict with the orders passed by this high court in WP no.31288 of 2023 dt.05.12.2023 and order made in C.C.No.2605 of 2024 dt. 18.09.2024 consequently Honourable court may be pleased to set aside the proceedings of the 4*^^respondents proceedings in R.C.No.143/C2/2024 dt.19.03.2025 and the proceedings of the respondents R.C.No.858/(A2) BI/2025 dt.19.03.2025 and to pass...” The above prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7562 of 2025 is challenging the Proceedings bearing R.C.No.143/C2/202 4, dated 19.03.2025 (Ex.P.1). The said Proceedings are challenged on the ground that the said Proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer, Guntur would run counter to the Provisions of G.O.Ms.No. 1, Education (P.S.2) Department, dated 01.01.1994. Through the said G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, the Andhra Pradesh Government has promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools in Private Management) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1993). 5. The said Rules, 1993, would govern various aspects of the running of Schools under the private managements in the State of Andhra Pradesh including the Aided and Unaided as well as the Minority and Non-minority Schools. 6. 7. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1993, deals with Appointment of Teaching and Non-Teaching Staff and Rule 13 deals with the constitution of the Staff Selection Committee, which reads as follows: 5 'Rule-12: Appointment of Staff (1) The educational agency shall appointstaff as per the staffing pattern prescribed by Government from time to time. All staff shall conform to the qualifications prescribed by Government from time to time; (2) All the staff teaching as well as non-teaching shall be recruited through Staff Selection Committee to be constituted by the educational agency in accordance with these rules; (3) All the posts shall be advertised in atleast two News Papers having large circulation of which one shall be in Telugu; [(3A) Before filling-up of the aided teaching or non teaching posts, the educational agency shall necessarily obtain clearance from the Competent authority, to the effect that, there are no surplus posts in the concerned district, and if there are suitable surplus candidates, they should be deployed against the said vacancies as per the subject requirements. The competent authority shall however obtain the permission from the Government before issuing clearance for filling up of any aided posts.] (4) All educational institutions receiving grant in aid from Government shall notify vacancies to the Employment Exchange and in addition, advertisements in the News Papers, that they shall also be required to call the candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange for test and interview provided that the persons applying to the post in response to the advertisement in the news papers should have got registered their names in any Employment Exchanges in the State. (5) Aided Schools shall also be required to have of the District EducationalOfficernot below the rank of Deputy Educational Officer in the Staff Selection Committee. The educational agency shall fix the a nominee selection process (test/interview) in consultation with the District Educational Officer or his nominee and shall afford the D.E.O's nominee a reasonable opportunity of being present. The selection however, shall not be vitiated only on the ground of the absence of D.E.O's nominee if the educational agency has offered reasonable explanation. The burden of proving this shall lie with the educational agency. (6) The selection of the posts in all private educational institutions shall conform to the communal rotation roster. However this shall not apply to minority educational institution only if they are selecting a candidate belonging to the concerned minority community. Where such a candidate is fitted in a vacancy belonging to S.C/S.T, then the S.C/S.T, vacancy shaii be carried forward to the next point. 6 emp4el!lte,ffa af°™WeSafper '° prai^/rfetf (ftey hare (he oreerXh The service condithns Of fo /jo/d f/,e teac/7/ng s/7a// 6e teach,ng and educational agency concerned and fh "" in this shall be adjudicated ^n a rt^/ ^'^P^tes, if Junsdiction/Educational Trih lJr " ^f without reference to Lrnpetent llfT'-^,'^^^'' constituted) and However, in respect of aided posts Government. (4)/(5) and (6) shall apply] ^ of sub-rules non- competent [(S) AH appointments staff by aided —«c r'••"•S-'S approval unless the selection d^^nt rules. ^norUertoolJJSZZlJiftZlf^^^^^^ educational agency to reminri m ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^nt on the u^onth after,he InZi comm,r.t , authority The burden of proof of havina ^rn'^' “ received, the competen, authority shat, & with 7heedcT^ionT'"''“°" (9) The educational only on the approval one agency;] agency shall make the appointments as per sub-rule (8) above; P^^'^^^^nts (10) Nothing in this rule shall prevent exceeding 60 days. an educational agency a casual vacancy of appointment is not for a period Rule-13: Staff Selection Committee: - [(1) The Staff Selection Committee up of an aided post other than following persons for the purpose of filling promotion shall consist of the as members: (a) President of educational ugency or his nominee; Secretary/MaZlIZofthtZ„]mulZn!^""° ^°"^^'=°''nunt/ (c)Two subject experts, agency from the panef^ Educational Officer Of thr^ca ^f^i District Headmasteroff^JcZrisTTsc^jT District Educational Officer not below the Officer nominated by the concerned. 7 (2) The president of the educational agency can either be the Chairman; or nominate one of the members of the Staff Selection Committee to be the Chairman. (3) The quorum for the Staff Selection Committee meetings shall be four of which the presence of District Educational Officer's nominee is compulsory. Vide G.O.Ms.No.43, School Education (PS) Department, dated 8. 09.08.2018, Rule 12 of the Rules, 1993 came to be amended in the year 2018 and Rule 13 was consequently omitted. 9. Essentially, the amendment was made to Rule 12 vide G.O.Ms.No.43, School Education (PS) Department, dated 09.08.2018 by virtue of which a new method for the selection process was introduced. This method of selection was based on the State Level Computer Based Test/Examination. The provision for Interview has been dispensed with since the Test/Examination is computer-based and on a State Level basis. The other dynamics of Computer Based Examination/Test are also prescribed in the G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018. The new method of selection of Teachers by conducting a State Level Computer Based Test/Examination vide G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018, became the subject matter of challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions (in W.P.No. 28919 of 2018 and batch). 10. 11. In the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court, vide Judgement dated 16.04.2019, was pleased to set aside the G.O.Ms.No.43 Department, dated 09.08.2018 in its entirety. School Education (PS) 8 12. The relevant portion of the Order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court, dated 16.04.2019, in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, is usefully extracted hereunder; ‘P0INTN0.3 Though the respondents raised several contentions with regard to minority status of the petitioners, this Court, in the present petitions cannot decide the same, as the constitutional validity of G.O.Ms.No.43 is itself challenged before this Court and if this Court strikes down the G.O, which is applicable only to the minority educational institutions whether aided. However, only the minority educational institutions who obtained certificate from the competent authorities as defined under Section 2(1) (a) 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 by the competent authority. But, in the present facts, it is unnecessary to delve upon such an issue. It is for the government to take appropriate action against the institutions which are not declared as minority educational institutions per the provisions of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004. These questions cannot be decided in the present petitions and the same is left open to the State to take appropriate action in this regard. “In view of the foregoing discussion, writ petitions allowed declaring G.O.Ms.No.43 as void and unconstitutional, as it is violative of fundamentai right guaranteed under Article 30(1) of the Constitution of India. ” as are 13. Due to the quashing of G.O.Ms.No.43 in its entirety, needless to state that the text of G.O.Ms.No.43 became redundant and a dead-letter in its entirety, and that the Judgement of the Division Bench has attained finality. In this view of the matter, the earlier text of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1993 had got automatically revived. 14. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the District Educational Officers of various Districts have tried to revive the content of the dead-letter of 9 G.O.Ms.No.43 by Executive Proceedings in an indirect manner \A/ithout any lawful basis. 15. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the effect of G.O.Ms.No.43 cannot be brought back into life either directly or indirectly by Executive Orders or Executive Instructions after the said G.O had been unequivocally set aside by the Division Bench on 16.04.2019 in W.P.No.28912 of 2019 and batch. 16. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Rule 12 came to be amended vide G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018, and that through the same G.O., Rule 13 of the Rules, 1993, also came to be repealed. When the Constitutional validity of this G.O.Ms.No.43 came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, the said G.O. was set aside in its entirety vide Judgement dated 16.04.2019. It is also an admitted fact that the Judgement of the Division Bench, dated 16.04.2019 which set aside the G.O.Ms.No.43 in its entirety, has attained finality. It is also an admitted fact that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had not brought into effect any Rule or Regulation for introducing the State Level Computer Based Test/Examination for appointment of Staff (Teaching and Non-teaching) in various Government Schools and for Aided Posts of Teachers. 17. 18. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Impugned Proceedings in this batch of Writ Petitions, 10 subjecting candidates to Computer Based selection process, is not backed by any valid Statute, Rule or Regulation. 19. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that what has been expressly set aside, and which had eventually attained finality, cannot be reintroduced through an indirect method or through a backdoor method without there being any legal justification. 20. Since it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had attempted to indirectly introduce a new system of Examination for selection of Teaching and Non-teaching Staff in accordance with the dead-letter of a defunct Government Order bearing G.O.Ms.No.43, it becomes relevant to examine the actual text of G.O.Ms.No.43 by which Rule 12 was sought to be amended and Rule 13 was sought to be deleted. Therefore, the amended Rule 12 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.43 reads as under: “In the said rules, for rule 12, the following shall be substituted, namely "12. Procedure for filling up of the posts in Aided lnstitutions:-(1) The merit-cum-roster based recruitment system as is existing be continued. There shall be a separate roster system for each school. The posts shall be filled up accordingly. However this shall not apply to minority educational institution only if they are selecting a candidate belonging to the concerned minority community. Where such a candidate is fitted against a vacancy belonging to S.C./S.T, then the S.C./S.T vacancy shall be carried forwarded to the next recruitment. (2) The rationalisation exercise shall be taken up every year in the month of October based on the Aadhaar seeded UDISE enrolment data as on 30th September of that year. The recruitment procedure to fill up vacancies shall be taken up only after completing the promotions, which shall be done regular basis every year. on a 11 ■> (3) The District Educational Officer or the Regional Joint Director, as the case may be, shall estimate the number of posts to be filled in respective unit /School by way of direct recruitment based on teacher-pupil ratio requirement subject wise only after affecting promotions. (4) Regional Joint Director of School Education/District Educational Officer has to confirm that there are no surplus teachers/posts in the district and submit the school-wise posts, required to be filled up in respective unit/ school, by way of direct recruitment to the Commissioner of School Education. (5) The Commissioner of School Education, shall issue notification for filling up of posts for all aided schools of the State duly informing Government. (6) Out of the total posts to be filled in the district, 80% of posts shall be filled with local candidates of the district remaining 20% would be open to all. (7)The applicants for non-teaching posts will have separate examination as decided by the Commissioner of School Education from time to time. (8) The selection process for teaching and non-teaching follows: (a) The selection process shall be based on a State Level computer based test/examination. There shall be no interview, (b) The procedure of examination including total marks, subjects and the duration of examination shall be decided by the Government, (c) Required operational guidelines shall be issued by Commissioner of School Education. The selection process shall be completed within the time schedule prescribed by the Commissioner of School Education, (d) Candidates should qualify in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for recruitment to Aided post, (e) The Educational qualifications/ Age limit shall be same as the teachers being recruited for Government/Local body schools, (f) An officer, not below the rank of Additional Director O/o Commissioner of School Education shall be appointed as convenor for conduct of A-CRT (Aided common recruitment test) selection process. The Commissioner of School Education shall nominate the person to look after the entire recruitment process." [Vide G.O.Ms.No. 43, S.E (PS) Dept, dated 9-8- 2018.] 12 Sri N. Subba Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to an Order passed by this Court in another batch of Writ Petitions by Ld. Single Judge by which the Ld. Single Judge of this Court has directed the Official Respondents to follow Rule-12 of the Rules, 1993 by issuing certain directions vide Order dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch. The relevant portion of the Order of the Ld. Single Judge dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch is usefully extracted hereunder: 21. “9. In view of the above stand taken by the Government, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions : i) The respondent-authorities are hereby directed to permit the petitioners-institutions to fill up all the Aided vacancies in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 and also as per the Schedule prescribed under Sections 19 & 25 of the Act,2009 ; ii) In future also, whenever vacancies arise, the institutions have to make applications to the Competent authorities for filling up the vacancies ; Hi) On such applications, the Competent authorities shall inform the institution about the availability of qualified surplus staff, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of application and allot said surplus staff on permanent basis; iv) If surplus staff are not available, the Competent authority shall inform the same and permit the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacancies in accordance with the above said Rule, preferably within a period of two (02) months ; v) So far as minority institutions are concerned, the above procedure is not applicable insofar as allotment of surplus staff are concerned, in view of the Judgments of Division Bench of this Court rendered in Modem High School, Zamisthanpur V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Othersi and Ester Axene Res. High School and Others V. 13 State of Andhra Pradesh and Others 2nn9 ALD 96; MANU/AP/0045/2019 ^ 22. FoJIowing the said Order Writ Petitioner in W.P.no.7562 of 2025 Single Judge in W.P.No.31288 another Writ Petition which was filed by the came to be disposed of by the Ld. of 2023 vide Order dated 05. 12.2023 (Ex.P.9), in which. Ld. Single Judge had Order dated 05,01.2023 i Counsel has drawn the Rules, 1993, which (PS.2) Department dated attention of this Court definition of ‘Educational extracted the relevant portion Para-9 of the in W.P.no.30927 of 2022 and batch. Ld. Senior attention of this Court to various provisions of the G.O.Ms.No.1 Education were brought into effect vide 01.01.1994. Ld. Senior Counsel has drawn the to Rule-2(b) of the 1993 Rules with regard to the Agency. He had also drawn the attention of this and Rule-10 Sub Rule (2), Ld. Senior Counsel court to Rule-12 Sub Rule (1), has taken this Court through the Sub Rules (3) (a). Sub Rules 4 to 6, and Sub Rule 8 and also Rule-13. He would submit that the School Education (PS-2) Department reference to G.O.IVIs.No.75 dated 23.09.2002 (Ex.P.3) (Reference impugned Order dated 19.03 2025fEx P 1 \ ho L^o.^u^o(tx.p.i) has no relevance to He would submit that No.2) in the i the issue on hand at all. G.O.Ms.No.75 School (Ex.P.3) would itself Indicate the District Educational placing reliance dated 23.09.2002 mind on the part of passing the impugned Order on Education (PS-2) Department complete non-application of Officer in dated 14 19.03.2025. He would (PS-2) Department dated measure and therefore, the Senior Counsel has also drawn Education Act which i implementation of the Act. submit that the said G.O.Ms. 23.09.2002 (Ex.P.3) No.75 School Education was issued as a onetime issue on hand. Ld. to Section 7 of the same has no relevance to the the attention of this Court indicates that the Management iIS responsible for 23. Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Ld. Counsei Saiiesh Reddy, Ld. Counsel 7725, 7731, 7734, 8109, Educational Officer (Respondent appearing on behalf of Sri K.P.S for the Writ Petitioners (in W.P.Nos. 7036, 7700, that the Deputy had in Recruitment/DYEO- 8481 & 9455 of 2025) has submitted No.5 in W.P.No.7036 of 2025) therein fact ,ssued Proceedings vide Letter Rc.No.01/Spi-Aided GDR/2025 dated 13.02.2025 prescribing the Rules and procedure to be followed for conducting the Written Ld. Counsel for Petitioners Proceeding dated 22.03. Officer (Respondent No.4 i Computer Based Test (CBT) procedure as mandated would submit that this i Test for recruitment to the Teacher posts. the Writ Petitioners would submit that when the Writ were making efforts to conduct the Written Test, the impugned issued by the District Educational seeking to conduct a Committee of the Rules, 1993. He Official Respondents has also assailed prescribed under 2025 came to be i m W.P.No.7036 of 2025) without following the Staff Selection under Rule 12 and Rule 13 IS a sudden ‘U-Turn’ taken by the without any legal-basis, the power of the Respondents Ld, Counsel for the Writ Petitioners to deviate from the Rules O.O.Ms.No.l dated 01.01.1994. 15 24. Sri Gurram Ramachand has filed Counter-Affidavit Education, Guntur District i Affidavit, ra Rao, Ld. Government Pleader sworn by the Regional Joint Director in W.P.No.7562 of 2025. for Education of School Along with the Counter- a Stay Vacate Application attention of this Court to the i also has been filed. He has drawn the impugned Memo dated 19.03.2025, under which, praposed to conduct Computer Based Test (CBT) the Respondent No.2 has to avoid conflict among the candidates. It i Order dated 24.03.2025 in W.P.No.7562 of 2025 i IS to be noted that vide the Interim - in Para No.6, this Court had held as under; Court, Respondents have devlle7lc!^^’J''^ Which has been laid in Rules 12 A regard to the examination whTh with and would have been alreZ^ ^ scheduled today nex, listing or until the furthsr'oXsZfcoZ 25. Ld. Government Pleader G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018, insofar procedure is the Division Bench has for Education had submitted that the as the Computer Based Examination concerned (in terms of the not expressly set aside the amended Ruie-12 (8)) is concerned, said procedure. In Para-17 of the Counter-Affidavit Respondents formed by the filed by the Respondent No.3 in April-2025, a Staff Selection Committee the would also admit that has to be Officer; that the Institution and District Educational 16 advertisement then has to be given for recruitment of posts; and, that the test/interview shall be conducted with the District Educational Officer or their nominee. However, at this stage, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would submit that as there is no provision in the Rules to conduct a Computer Based Test and also to prevent the possibility of the Institutions in indulging correct practices in writing the written test, in the interest of teachers, the Official Respondents herein have conceived a transparent mode of testing and since the same is being done bonafide, the District Educational Officer or the Competent Authority can always prescribe such procedure. It is also stated by the Ld. Government Pleader that about 711 Applications have been received when the Official Respondents have notified the selection process online. This figure is vehemently disputed by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners. He would also submit that the method of test is prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS-2) Dept., dt. 01.01.1991 and therefore the Official Respondents have a degree of latitude to decide the method of examination and also with regard to short-listing of the Applications. 26. 27. In the light of the above facts, the following issues arise for consideration; /. Whether the method suggested by the District Educational Officer, dated 19.03.2025 (Ex.P.1), is in effect the same as that of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018 (which stood quashed in its entirety)? 17 /■/. If SO, whether the Government is permitted to either directly or indirectly introduce a system that stood set aside by an Order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court dated 16.04.2019, in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch? Hi. Whether it is permissible for the Executive to introduce a method through an Executive Instruction or an Executive Order, which stood expressly set aside by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court? iv. Whether the Impugned Proceeding dated 19.03.2025 bearing Rc.No.143/C2/2024 (Ex.P.1) is sustainable in law, in the light of the Order of the Division Bench striking down the G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept, dated 09.08.2018 and aiso in the light of the Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch? ANAYALSIS: 28. Although, Ld. Senior Counsel had extensively referred to various provisions of the Education Act as well as the Rules-1993, which have also been referred to herein above, for the sake of brevity, this Court has not extracted the entire provisions of the statute. Although, several contentions have been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners as well as the Ld. Government Pleader, the issues fall in a very narrow compass as indicated above. The State of Andhra Pradesh has promulgated the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools in Private Management) Rules, 1993 and had brought the said Rules into effect through the G.O.Ms. No.1 (PS-2) Department, dated Rule-12 of the Rules 1993 deal with ‘appointment of teaching On 09.08.2018, Rule-12 was amended vide 01.01.1994. and non-teaching staff’. 18 G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018. This Rule had dispensed with the written examination-cum-interview and had introduced Computer Based System of examination apart from encompassing the minority institutions also into the fold of Computer Based Testing (CBT). It was this amended Rule-12 vide G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018 that came to be assailed before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, vide Order dated 16.04.2019 in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the amendment made to Rule-12 that was brought into the effect vide G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018. This Order has attained finality. Thereafter, this Court had upheld the provisions of Rule-12 and had also reiterated that the procedure laid down in Rule-12 must be followed for the purpose of appointing teaching and non-teaching staff through the Staff Selection Committee and that the said procedure prescribes conduct of Written test along with Interview. It is also contemplated that the educational agency shall conduct the selection process when once the representative on behalf of the Official Respondents, including the subject experts, are appointed. In the light of the above discussion, and also by taking into account the facts which have attained finality, particularly where the earlier procedure of conducting Written Test and Interview for making appointments of Teaching and Non-Teaching staff had been dispensed with vide G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. 29. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, had been set aside by the Division Bench of 19 this Court and also in the light of the fact that the order has attained finality this Court is of the opinion that until and unless the legislature makes an amendment to the Rules 1993, by introducing Computer Based Test (CBT) expressly dispensing with the system of Written Test and Interview, the Executive is not entitled to introduce a new system. 30. Howsoever laudable the object of the proposed conduct of Computer Based Test (CBT) may be, the same cannot be introduced without being backed-up by a legislation or a subordinate legislation. It certainly cannot be done through an executive fate either in the form of an executive instruction or executive order. When the system which had been introduced for conducting Computer based test had been expressly set aside by striking down G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, the state cannot introduced the same system indirectly by an executive order or an executive instruction, for, what you cannot do directly, you cannot do it indirectly either. 31. 32. Although, the Court takes note of the increase in the competition and also increase in the number of applications for filling up the teacher posts, the state may take steps in bringing in a suitable legislation or subordinate legislation for introducing the new system that may be commensurate with the current needs and exigencies. Till such time, the State has not brought in a legislation or subordinate legislation by amending the Rule-12 and by deleting the Rule-13 of the Rules-1994, the State cannot introduced the Computer Based Test (CBT). 20 In the light of the above discussion and analysis, the issues framed hereinabove are answered in the following manner: 33. /. Whether the method suggested by the District Educational Officer, dated 19.03.2025 (Ex.P.1), is in effect the same as that of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018 (which stood quashed in its entirety)? 33.1. The current method of introducing computer based test in terms of the impugned Order is in effect the same as that of G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018, which stood quashed in its entirety. a. If so, whether the Government is permitted to either directly or indirectly introduce a system that stood set aside by an Order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court dated 16.04.2019, in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch? 33.2. In the light of the above answer, this Court holds that the Government is not permitted to either directly or indirectly introduce the same system which stood quashed by this Court, vide Order dated 16.04.2019 in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 & batch. Hi. Whether it is permissible for the Executive to introduce a method through an Executive Instruction or an Executive Order, which stood expressly set aside by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court? 33.3. In the absence of a legislation, the Government is not permitted to introduce the system, that stood expressly set aside, either through an executive instruction or through an executive order. iv. Whether the Impugned Proceeding dated 19.03.2025 bearing Rc.No.143/C2/2024 (Ex.P.1) is sustainable in law, in the light of the Order of the Division Bench striking down the G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018 and also in the light of the Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch? 21 33.4. In view of the above, this Court categorically holds that the impugned Proceedings, compelling the private management to undertake the process of computer based test/examination is bad in law. 34. In this view of the matter, all these Writ Petitions stand allowed. The Impugned Proceedings (in all the Writ Petitions) directing the educational institutions to subject the applicants for the post of teachers to a Computer Based Test are hereby set aside. However, having regard to the fact that the schools are now on summer recess and that by the date the Schools would be re-opened, there is a requirement for the Schools to appoint the Teachers at the earliest for the purpose of preparedness. For the purpose of achieving this preparedness, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to follow the procedure laid down in Rules 12 and 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 by completing the process within a period of three (03) weeks from today. 35. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 09.05.2025 DSV/MNR/JKS L.R Copy to be marked