C S I AIDED (U) PRIMARY SCHOOL v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
WP/27916/2024 · 2025-02-25
Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34505 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34505 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010535142024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 27916/2024 Between: C S I Aided (U) Primary School ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NAGA RAJU KOLLATI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
The Court made the following order:
2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.27916 of 2024 ORDER:
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No.4 in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.197/C1/2022-1, dated 31.05.2023, cancelling the Recognition of the petitioner-CSI Aided Primary School, Sathyavedu, Tirupati District without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner as illegal arbitrary and violation of Article 21-A, 29 and 30 Constitution of India and also violation of principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the said proceedings and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
2. Through impugned proceedings in Rc.No.197/C1/2022-1, dated 31.05.2023, the 4th respondent has cancelled the recognition granted to the petitioner institution. Assailing the said proceedings, the present writ petition is filed on the ground that the 4th respondent has passed the impugned order without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner herein. 3. The 4th respondent has filed counter inter alia stating that they followed the procedure before delivering the impugned proceedings and cancelled the recognition of the petitioner institution. It is further asserted in the counter that after due considering the explanation,
3 dated 17.07.2022 submitted by the petitioner institution, the 4th respondent has given more time than the time requested by the petitioner to improve the enrolment.
It is further noticed that the enrolment of the school in the UDISE Data as on 17.03.2023 is 22 and another notice was issued to the petitioner on 25.03.2023 wherein the petitioner was directed to submit the explanation as to why the school shall not be closed/recognition cancelled as per Rule 10(17) and (17) (A) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 as amended in the G.O.Ms.No.39, Education, dated 17.06.2013 and G.O.Ms.No.24, School Education (PS) Department, dated 25.02.2022 and for that the petitioner has submitted its explanation, dated 03.04.2023 requesting to extend some more time to increase the strength. The strength of the school for the academic year 2020-21 and 2021-22 is 24 and 16 respectively. Inspite of granting ample amount of time and giving several notices, the petitioner institution has failed to improve the strength. Hence, the recognition of the petitioner institution has been cancelled by the 4th respondent vide impugned proceedings, dated
31.05.2023. 4. Learned Government Pleader for School Education would submit that if the petitioner institution improves the strength, the petitioner school is at liberty to file fresh application to the concerned authority and the same will be considered in accordance with law. 4
5. In view of the suggestion put forward by the learned Government Pleader, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner school to submit a fresh application to the concerned authority after the improvement of the strength of the petitioner school and on the application filed by the petitioner, the authority under Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 is directed to consider the request for establishment of school in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date : 25.02.2025 SPP
5
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.27916 of 2024
Date : 25.02.2025
SPP