1 APHC010286232024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos.14511, 15177 of 2024, 19593 of 2020, 7976, 16853 of 2021, 1280S2, 17885, 18029 of 2022, 2162, 3964, 3966, 3972, 13836, 16891, 21074, 21120, 21121 of 2023 WRIT PETITION NO: 14511/2024 Between: M Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI WRIT PETITION NO: 2162/2023 Between: Ravipudi Venubabu ...PETITIONER AND 2 The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI WRIT PETITION NO: 3964/2023 Between: Karumanchi Sujatha ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 3. UMADEVI MANCHALA WRIT PETITION NO: 3966/2023 Between: Ravipudi Srinivasa Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 3 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 3. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 3972/2023 Between: Ravipudi Ankamma Chowdary ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 3. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 7976/2021 Between: K.prasada Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. P S P SURESH KUMAR 4 3. GHANTA SRIDHAR 4. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 12802/2022 Between: Nagalla Sudhakar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P SAI SURYA TEJA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. GHANTA SRIDHAR 3. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 4. GUTTAPALEM VIJAYA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO: 13836/2023 Between: M Venkateswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GHANTA SRIDHAR 2. GP FOR SERVICES II 5 3. M MURALI LINCOLN(STANDING COUNSEL FOR ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY) WRIT PETITION NO: 15177/2024 Between: Sri Akula Sreenu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ELEVATED AS JUDGE Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES III 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI WRIT PETITION NO: 16853/2021 Between: P.bapi Raju, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. P S P SURESH KUMAR 3. GHANTA SRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 16891/2023 Between: 6 Kurapati Neelakanteswara Prasad ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI WRIT PETITION NO: 17885/2022 Between: Y.lalitham ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVAS BOBBILI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES II 2. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 3. M MURALI LINCOLN(STANDING COUNSEL FOR ACHARYA NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY) WRIT PETITION NO: 18029/2022 Between: Macharla Muralidhar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 7 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. . 3. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI WRIT PETITION NO: 19593/2020 Between: Dr.k. Rama Krishna ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR EDUCATION 2. GHANTA SRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21074/2023 Between: Kurra Balaram Das, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 8 2. GHANTA SRIDHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 21120/2023 Between: Y. Srinivas Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. GHANTA SRIDHAR 3. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI WRIT PETITION NO: 21121/2023 Between: Karumanchi Vijaya Bhaskar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION 2. GHANTA SRIDHAR 3. SRINIVASA RAO BODDULURI 9 The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER:- The petitioner(s) herein are teaching and non teaching members of the Bapatla Engineering College. The grievance of the petitioner(s) is common. Therefore, these Writ Petitions are being disposed of through this ‘Common Order’. 2. Heard Sri Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner(s); learned counsel Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, appearing for the College and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Higher Education. 3. The petitioners are seeking extension of age of superannuation from 58 to 60 years. The petitioners (Non-Teaching Staff) claim that their conditions of service are governed by the provisions of Sec.78-A of the A.P. Education Act. In W.P.No.13836 of 2023, the petitioner(s) challenges the proceedings of the College, terminating the services of the petitioner(s) under the guise of downsizing the faculty. 4. It is contended that the provisions of Sec.78-A of the A.P. Education Act, have been amended from time to time to the effect that the members of the aided private colleges, teaching and non teaching shall retire from service on attaining the age of 62 years. 10 5. It is further contended that there are no separate regulations governing the private unaided institutions, which duly prescribes the age of superannuation and it is governed by the Section 78-A of the A.P Education Act, AFRC Regulations & AICTE Guidelines and as prescribed under such rules and guidelines, the petitioners are entitled to continue their services till the age of 62 years and it is contended that the 5th respondent is not considering those Rules and Regulations and the amended Section of 78-A of the A.P Education Act. 6. The petitioner(s) relying on the following judgments contend that the Writ Petitions are maintainable. I. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others1, wherein it is observed as under: “75. We may sum up our final conclusions as under: 75.1. An application under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a person or a body discharging public duties or public functions. The public duty cast may be either statutory or otherwise and where it is otherwise, the body or the person must be shown to owe that duty or obligation to the public involving the public law element. Similarly, for ascertaining the discharge of public function, it must be established that the body or the person was 1 2023(4) SCC 498 11 seeking to achieve the same for the collective benefit of the public or a section of it and the authority to do so must be accepted by the public. 75.2. Even if it be assumed that an educational institution is imparting public duty, the act complained of must have a direct nexus with the discharge of public duty. It is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ: Individual wrongs or breach of mutual contracts without having any public element as its integral part cannot be rectified through a writ petition under Article 226. Wherever Courts have intervened in their exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, either the service conditions were regulated by the statutory provisions or the employer had the status of "State" within the expansive definition under Article 12 or it was found that the action complained of has public law element. 75.3. It must be consequently held that while a body may be discharging a public function or performing a public duty and thus its actions becoming/ amenable to judicial review by a constitutional court, its employees would not have the right to invoke the powers of the High Court conferred by Article 226 in respect of matter relating to service where they are not governed or controlled by the statutory provisions. An educational institution may perform myriad functions touching various facets of public life and in the societal sphere. While such of those functions as would fall within the domain of a "public function" or "public duty" be undisputedly open to challenge and scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution, the actions or decisions taken solely within the confines of an ordinary contract of service, having no statutory force or hacking, cannot be recognised as being amenable to challenge under Article 12 226 of the Constitution. In the absence of the service conditions being controlled or governed by statutory provisions, the matter would remain in the realm of an ordinary contract of service. 75.4. Even if it be perceived that imparting education by private unaided school is a public duty within the expanded expression of the term, an employee of a non-teaching staff engaged by the school for the purpose of its administration or internal management is only an agency created by it. It is immaterial whether "A" or "B" is employed by school to discharge that duty. In any case, the terms of employment of contract between a school and non-teaching staff cannot and should not be construed to be an inseparable part of the obligation to impart education. This is particularly in respect to the disciplinary proceedings that may be initiated against a particular employee. It is only where the removal of an employee of non-teaching staff is regulated by some statutory provisions, its violation by the employer in contravention of c law may be interfered with by the Court. But such interference will be on the ground of breach of law and not on the basis of interference in discharge of public duty. 75.5. From the pleadings in the original writ petition, it is apparent that no element of any public law is agitated or otherwise made out. In other words, the action challenged has no public element and writ of mandamus cannot be d issued as the action was essentially of a private character.” 13 II. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Marwari Balika Vidyalaya Vs. Asha Srivatsava and Others2; III. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Janet Jeyapaul Vs. SRM University and Others3; IV. The Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M.R.K. Polytechnic Vs. J.J.S. Prasad and Others4; V. The decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.6916 & 7266 of 2019 dated 13.09.2019, and VI. The decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jayati Mozumdar Vs. Managing Committee Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar & Another, 7. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents contending that Writ Petitions are not maintainable, since the petitioners herein are working in a private unaided institution, their service conditions are not within the domain of the official respondents. However, in order to get approvals from the AICTE, the college has to comply with the regulations of the AICTE. However, the same would not be sufficient to confer a status of 2 (2020) 14 SCC 449 3 (2015) 16 SCC 530 4 2023 SCC Online AP 3457 14 public body. Reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others, has been placed. 8. The learned counsel Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, appearing for the respondent College, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others and Army Welfare Education Society, New Delhi Vs. Sunil Kumar Sharma and Others5, contends that the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 9. Considered the rival submissions. 10. The respondent College, where the petitioners have been working, is an unaided private college established by an Education Society for imparting education. 11. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others, (referred supra), although imparting of education is in the realm of discharging of public duty. However, the service conditions of the petitioner(s) in the present cases are not governed by any statutory provisions. In fact, they are matters of contractual obligation between the petitioners and the respondent College. 2024 SCC Online SC 1683 15 12. Having regard to the same, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of St. Mary’s Education Society & Another Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava & Others, (referred supra), this Court is of the view that the Writ Petitions are not maintainable. 13. The Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date:23.12.2025 MVK 16 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos.14511, 15177 of 2024, 19593 of 2020, 7976, 16853 of 2021, 1280S2, 17885, 18029 of 2022, 2162, 3964, 3966, 3972, 13836, 16891, 21074, 21120, 21121 of 2023 Date:23.12.2025 MVK