APHC010342072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 797 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred agatnst the Order dt 04-04-2025 in W.P.No.27468 of 2013 on the file of the High Court. Between: 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, A P, Secretariat, Hyderabad Presently, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare, A P Hyderabad, Presently, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada, NTR District. 3. The Director of Tribal Welfare/Chairman, SLC of BAS Scheme, DSS Bhavan, Hyderabad Presently, Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada, NTR District. 4. The Project Officer, ITDA Yanadis, Chairman, DLC/BAS, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The District Tribal Welfare Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Appellants/Petitioners/Respondents 1 to 3, 5 & 6 AND 1. M/s. Chaitanya High School, Rep by its Correspondent N Parvathamma W/o. K. R. S. Raju, Aged 47 Years, Occ: Correspondent, Podalakur V, SPSR Nellore District. 2. M/s. Satvasai E M High School, Rep by its Correspondent Ch Sudeshna, W/o. Haragopal, Age 38 Years, Occ: Correspondent Narayanareddypet V, Nellore Rural M, SPSR Nellore District. 3. M/s. Raghava E M High School, Rep by its Correspondent. Dasaratha Ramaiah, S/o. Penchal Naidu, Aged 46 Years, Occ: Correspondent, Usmansahebpet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore Districts 4. M/s. St. Josephs E M High School, Rep by its Correspondent, Sister Leena, D/o. Joseph, Aged 42 Years, Occ: Correspondent, Dargamitta, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Respondent/Writ Petitioner 5. The Special Officer Nutrition, O/o. The Director of Tribal Welfare, DSS Bhavan, Hyderabad. (R5 is not necessary party in this petition) ...Respondent/4 Respondent lA NO: 2 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 suspend the operation of the order of Learned Single Judge passed in WP.No.27468 of 2013 dated- 04-04-2025 Trending disposafof the above writ appeal. Counsel for the Petitioners: GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : SRI C. L. N. GANDHI Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010342072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Sr.No:-l24 [3483] AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 797 of 2025 The Government Of Andhra Pradesh, and Others ...Appellant(s) Vs. M/s Chaitanya High School and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellants: Advocate for Respondent: Govt. Pleader for Social Welfare Mr. C L N Gandhi CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 14th July 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ (Orah : As per the scheme of the Government notified vide G.O.Ms.No.70, dated 01.08.2021, any school which is declared as Best Available School (BAS) is entitled to scholarships for the students from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.20,000/- from class Hi to class X. According to the scheme of the aforesaid G.O., there is a District level Committee which makes recommendations, which has to be then scrutinized by the State Level Committee whereafter the Government finally issues appropriate orders. 2 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No: 797 of 2025 2. The writ petitioners’ case is that even when the recommendations are made by the District Level Committee and they were approved by the State Level Committee, the scholarships were not made available even when the schools of the petitioners were declared as Best Available Schools. It is not out of place here to mention that there is no dispute that the petitioners’ institutions were declared as Best Available Schools and were given the facility of scholarships in accordance with the rates which have been prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.161, dated 11.08.2008. The petitioners filed writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to enhance the scholarship to Rs.20,000/- per head as had been recommended by the District Level Committee and also sought arrears. The petition was allowed by virtue of the judgment and order impugned by the learned single Judge, who held that no reasons were recorded as to why the petitioners’ institutions were discriminated who are otherwise on par with the others. 3. Reference was made by the learned single Judge to the case of Bala Bharati High School, Vidyanagar, where the scholarship amount was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per annum for students from classes V to X. 4. The basis for rejection of the case of the petitioners by the Government as per the stand taken in the counter-affidavit before the learned single Judge was that the institutions of the petitioners had not achieved the institutional 3 HCJ a RC, J W.A. No; 797 of 2025 standards as per clause VII 1(a) of G.O.Ms.NoJO. The learned single Judge, however, recorded that in the remarks column of the minutes, the field was left empty and that no reasons had been assigned as to why the petitioners had been discriminated when they were on par with the other such institutions and in those circumstances, the learned single Judge proceeded to issue directions to the respondents for considering the case of the petitioners for enhancement and payment at the enhanced rate of Rs. 15,000/- for classes III & IV; Rs.20,000/- for classes V to X per student per annum on par with the other Best Available Schools, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 5. We have gone through the judgment as also heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 6. We find that before the State Level Committee, there was no material for consideration other than the recommendations made by the District Level Committee, which would have enabled the State Level Committee to come to a conclusion that any of the institutions had failed to maintain the institutional standards. In fact, we are in agreement with the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that a school unless it had maintained institutional standards would not be eligible to be declared as a Best Available School as per the scheme. The fact that there were no remarks made in the column pertaining to the petitioners’ institutions by the State Level Committee 4 HCJ & RC,J W.A. No: 797 of 2025 also suggests that what is sought to be justified by the respondent State in their counter-affidavit, is not supported by the decision on record. Considering the principles of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr^ wherein the Apex Court clearly held that a decision or an order cannot be improved or supplemented by way of additional affidavit and that the decision has to be considered on merits as it is placed before the Court, in our view, the view expressed by the learned single Judge warrants no interference. The writ appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. T (1978) 1 see 405 Sd/-V.DIWAKAR DEPUTY, REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S N OFFICER To, 1. Two CCs to GP for Social Welfare, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 2. One CC to Sri C. L. N. Gandhi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Cnr y HIGH COURT DATED:14/07/2025 JUDGMENT WA NO. 797 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS