\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY. THE FIRST DAY OF MAY ^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE V PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WRIT PETITION NO: 11227 OF 2025 AMARA v/ NIMMAGADDA Between: Panchangam Mahidhara Talf^Sainadh, about 31 years, R/o Flat No. mandalam, Krishna district. s/o Sai Venkata Rajagopal, aged 112, Ratna Residency, Uyyuru village and ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi^ 2. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, UyyurVdivision 4. The Tahsildar, Pamidimukk^la mandalam , Krishna district. Uyyuru mandalam, Krishna district. 5. Panchangam Laksl^ Narasamma, aged about 80 years, R/o 1-307, Andhra bank mandalam, Krishna district. w/o late Rangaramanujacharyuluj street, Uyyuru village and ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that ,n the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS appro^te Writ, Order or Direction to DECLARE the respondent in not considering or any other action of the 3'''^ my appeal/representation against the respon^^ with respect to the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 2-28 cents situated mutation carried out by the 4**^ in S. No. 175/2 and 175/3 of Srirangapuram village, Pamidimukkala mandalam, Krishna district without following due procedure, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of AP Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and rules made thereunder and contrary to Articles 14 and 300-A Constitution of India and consequently DIRECT the 3rd respondent to consider the appeal/representation dated 02.09^^4 by law. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI. J.V.PHANIDUTH ^ Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE ^ The Court made the following: as per the procedure established APHC010215362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HMH [3329] THURSDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 11227/2025 Between: Panchangam Mahidhara Talpa Sainadh ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.J.V.PHANIDUTH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:11227/202S ORDER: The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief: ‘to issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction to declare the action of the 3^^ respondent In not considering my appeal/representation against the mutation carried out by the 4 th respondent with respect to the subject property admeasuring an extent of Ac. 2-28 cents situated in S. No. 175/2 and 175/3 of Srirangapuram village, Pamidimukkala mandalam, Krishna district without following due procedure as illegal, arbitrary, violative of provisions of A.R Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 and Rules made thereunder and contrary to Articles 14 and 300-A Constitution of India and consequently direct the 3'^ respondent to consider the appeal/representation dated 02.09.2024 as per the procedure established by law In the Interest ofjustice and pass such other order or orders....” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. 3. Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents, more particularly, respondent No.3 to consider and dispose of the appeal/ representation 02.09.2024 submitted by the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, learned the respondents dated 02.09.2024 Government Pleader for Revenue the appeal/ representation pending with the for readily agreed to dispose of submitted by the petitioner authorities, within a reasonable time. 6. In view of the submission Revenue, this Court of the learned Government Pleader for need not decide the truth allegations made in the petition. This Court or otherwise of the IS conscious that no such in view of the judgment of the Apex Court direction be issued, i in “The wherein the Apex Court held a quick or easy disposal of But, they do not Government of India that such orders V. P.Venkatesh^ may make for overburdened adjudicatory institutions. cases in serve to the cause of justice. As the learned requested to issue dated 02.09.2024 counsel for the petitioner himself a direction to dispose of the appeal/ representation this Court find no other alternative except to issue such direction. In the result, the writ petition i IS disposed of, directing the respondents. more particularly, respondent No.3 to consider and dispose 02.09.2024 submitted of the appeal/ representation dated by the 2004(1) see 769 petitioner, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned, within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- M. PRABHAKAR RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OhFiCER To, 1. The Principal Secretary (Revenue) Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The District Collector, Krishna Di^ict, Machilipatnam. 3. The Reve^ Divisional Officer, Uyyurfraivision, Krishna district. ^ 4. The Tahsildar. Pamidimukkala district>'^ 5. Panchangam Lakshmi Naf^amma. aged about 80 years, R/o 1-307, Andhra bank mandalam, Krishna district.(1 to 5 by RPAD) 6. OneCCto SRI. J.V.“ 7. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies State of Andhra Pradesh mandalam, Uyyuru mandalam, Krishna w/o late Rangaramanujacharyulu, street, Uyyuru village and PHANIDL^ Advocate [OPUC] ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. ksr HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER 2 5 SEP 2025 rrentSectieiL WP.No.11227 of 2025 .ol <2 ★ DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY Writ Petition Nos.30927. 2888. 4938. 8014. 8197, 30548. 31010, 31039, 31730, 33163, 35592, 37415. 37467 37508, 38250. 38924. 40923 and 42367 of 2022 COMMON ORDE R:- As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is inter-related, all these writ petitions are taken up together and are disposed of through this common order. 2. The petitioners in these cases are the management of private Schools. The grievance of the writ petitioners in all these Writ Petitions is the action of the official respondents in not permitting the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacant aided posts in their institutions in accordance with law. 3. Facts in nutshell : All the petitioners-institutions are private aided schools. All the institutions got recognition and thereafter, some posts have admitted into Grant-in-aid by the Government. The appointment of staff in the Aided institutions is governed by Rule-12 of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994. As per the terms in the said G.O., as and when vacancy arises, the Management shall make an application to the Competent authority, who in turn would grant permission to the 2 Management to constitute staff selection committee consisting of nominee of District Educational Officer (DEO) as well as the subject experts. Thereafter, the Management is free to make appoint from among the selected candidates after following procedure of giving notification in newspaper and also drafting the candidates from concerned employment exchange. Subsequently, the government issued a memo, dated 20.10.2004 imposing ban on recruitment of staff into Aided institutions. Thereafter, batch of Writ Petitions were filed i.e., W.P.No.9503 of 2005 and batch. After elaborate hearing, all the writ petitions allov/ed and the ban imposed by the State government was set aside vide common order, dated 30.07.2013. (ii) were Thereafter, the Government filed Writ Appeal No. 216 of 2014, which was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. Subsequently, the Government preferred appeal in S.L.P.No.8547 of 2014 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which was also dismissed on 14.09.2015. As there is no other go, the Government issued memo, vide Memo No. 18836/SC.PS/A1/2012, dated 04.01.2017 permitting the Aided Institutions, who approached the Court to fill up the vacant posts by lifting the ban. (iii) Subsequently, the government issued G.O.Ms.No.40, School Education (PS) Department, dated 30.06.2017 and as per the 3 said G.O., the Commissioner of School Education has issued proceedings in Rc.No.90/PS-1/2010-3, dated 20.07.2017 directing all the Regional Joint Directors of School Education and District Educational Officers to take necessary action in filling up all the As per the said G.O., and consequential respondent, dated 20.07.2017, all the petitioners-institutions requested the Competent authorities to permit them to fill up the vacant posts and to that effect, they made applications on various dates to the respective competent authorities. vacancies in the schools. vacancies in the schools. nd proceedings of the 2 liv) Subsequently, as per the instructions of the Government, the 2"'' respondent once again issued proceedings, dated 12.09.2017 keeping the recruitment in abeyance, proceedings were challenged in W.P.No.1041 of 2018 and this Court suspended the said abeyance proceedings, vide orders in I.A.No.1 of 2018 in W.P.No.1041 of 2018, dated 29.02.2020. Thereafter, all the petitioners-institutions made several applications to the Competent authorities seeking permission to fill up vacancies in Aided Schools. Till now, the Competent authorities did not take any decision or granted permission to fill the vacancies in Aided Schools. Aggrieved by the same, all these writ petitioners have come up with the batch of Writ Petitions. Subsequently, the said 4 Perused the entire material on record. This Court has also 4. passed interim orders in most of the Writ Petitions directing the Competent authorities to permit the petitioners-Institutions to fill up vacancies in Aided Schools by considering the proposal submitted by them. In spite of interim orders, the Competent authorities have not permitted the petitioners-institutions to fill up the vacancies. Consequently, some of the petitioners-institutions filed contempt cases before this Court and they are pending. 5. Learned Government Pleader for School Education filed counter-affidavit, inter alia contending that Aided schools should maintain teacher-student ratio as 1:40 for filling up of vacancies and that the petitioners-institutions have to fill up vacancies in Aided schools as per the provisions prescribed under Rule 12(3)(A) of G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (PS2) Department, dated 01.01.1994. 6. Sri N.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel, scrupulously submitted that so far as the contention of the official respondents with regard to teacher-student ratio is concerned, the same is governed by the schedule prescribed under Sections 19 & 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short, ‘the Act of 2009). For better appreciation, the said Schedule is extracted hereunder : 5 THE SCHEDULE (See Sections 19 and 25 ) Norms and Standards for a School SI.No. Item Norms and Standards Number of teachers Admitted children Number of teachers (a) For First class to 5 Class Up to Sixty Two th Between sixty-one to ninety Three Between Ninety one to one hundred and twenty Four Between orre hundred and twenty one to two hundred Five Above one hundred and fifty Children Five Plus one Head Teacher Above two hundred Children Pupil-Teacher Ratio ^excluding Head Teacher) shall not exceed forty. (b) For Sixth class to eight class (1)At least one teacher per class so that there shall be at least one teacher each for - (i) Science Mathematics ; (ii) Social Studies ; (iii) Languages and (2) At least one teacher for every thirty-five children Where admission of children is above one hundred- (i) A full time head teacher (ii) Part time instructors (3) for (A) Art Education (6) Health Physical Education (C) Work Education and 6 7. As such this being the Central Enactment, the State government is bound to follow the said Schedule. Further, so far as Rule-12(3)(A) of the Rules, 1993 is concerned, the petitioner- institutions have no objection to follow the Rule 12(3)(A) of the Rules, 1993. For better appreciation of the said provision, the same is extracted hereunder: 12.Appointment of Staff “Rule 12(3A) : Before iflling 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, competent authority shall however obtain the permission from the Government before issuing clearance for iflling up ofany aidedposts The 8. As per Rule 12 (3A) of the above said Rules, vacancies will be filled up by surplus candidates. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel states that respondent authorities are not sending surplus candidates and they are sending candidates only by way of adjustment and thereafter, recalling them, which happened in many cases. At this juncture, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader to 7 inform the stand of the Government with regard to sub-rule 3(A) of In such circumstances, learned Government Pleader filed affidavit of the Commissionerof School Education. Para-5 of the said affidavit reads as follows : Rule 12. Further to submit that instructions were issued to all the Regional Joint Directors of School Education and District Educational Officers with a request to identify the surplus teachers/ existing teachers of defunct aided schools as per Rule 10(12) in G.O.Ms.No. 1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 and transfer the surplus teachers Rule 10 (17) in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education, dated 01.01.1994 on a permanent basis and the same is under process". as per 9. In view of the above stand taken by the Government, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of with the following directions : 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 ; i) ii) In future also, whenever vacancies arise, the institutions have to make applications to the Competent authorities for filling up the vacancies ; iii) 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 Modern High School, Zamisthanpur V. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others^ and Ester Axene Res. High School and Others V. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others^. 2002 (1) ALD 96 ^ MANU/AP/0045/2019 9 Vi) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent-authorities within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order ; No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. K.SURESH REDDY,J day of January,2023. Note : LR Copy to be marked B/o RPD