APHC010354302025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17804/2025 Between: 1. MELLAM PRAMEELA EDNA SUKANYA RANI,, W/O. LAM PRAKASH RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 12-14-13/3, PRAKASH NAGAR, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, BLIND SCHOOL COMPOND, NARASARAOPETA, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 522601 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 4TH FLOOR, B- BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS VTPS ROAD, BIMARAJU GUTTA, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA RURAL. KRISHNA DISTRICT- 521456. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT,ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, 2 GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE DIST EDFUCATIONAL OFFICER, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH. 7. THE ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, REP BY ITS PRESIDENT/TRUSTEE, D. NO. 37-4-596/2, POST BOX NO. 205, CHRISTIAN ASHRAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-52202. 8. THE ADMINISTRATOR, ANDHRA EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, D. NO. 37-4- 596/2, POST BOX NO. 205, CHRISTIAN ASHRAM, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH- 52202. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions, declaring the action of the respondent no.8 in issuing the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent no.8 dated 09.07.2025 terminating the correspondent ship of the Stall Girls High School of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church with effect from Fore Noon 10.07.2025, and making attempts to change the correspondent in his favour arbitrarily on certain bogus allegations levelled against the petitioner without issuing any notice or conducting enquiry into the said allegations without having any authority is against the judgment of this Hon'ble court in the case of S L Kameswari V/S Government Of Andhra Pradesh, Education Department, Hyderabad Citation 1997 LawSuit(AP) 863 as the authority of removing the correspondent does not vest any power under the provision u/s 24(2) of Andhra Pradesh Education Act-1982 and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent no.8 dated 09.07.2025 terminating the correspondent ship of the Stall Girls High School of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church with effect from Fore Noon 10.07.2025 IA 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 pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent no.8 dated 09.07.2025 terminating the correspondent ship of the Stall Girls High School of the Andhra 3 Evangelical Lutheran Church with effect from Fore Noon 10.07.2025, and making attempts to change the correspondent in his favour duly directing the respondent authorities to continue the petitioner as correspondent of the Stall Girls High School of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church pending disposal of the above writ petition IA 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim order in I.A.No.1 of 2025 dated. 15-07-2025 in W.P. No. 17804 of 2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 May be pleased to receive the Reply copy on record by allowing the leave petition in W.P. No. 17804 of 2025, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI 3. GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following: 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.17804 of 2025 O R DE R: The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings issued by Respondent No.8 dated 09.07.2025 terminating the Petitioner as Correspondent of the Stall Girls High School of the Andhra Evangelical Lutheran Church (AELC)-Society with effect from 10.07.2025 as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts leading to filing of this case are as under: The Petitioner was working as Secretary and Correspondent of Sri Lam Edwin’s Memorial Educational Society and residing in the compound of the Stall Girls School, Guntur. The Petitioner was appointed as Correspondent of four schools running under the control of Respondent No.7 on 10.11.2013 and the same was acknowledged by Respondent No.4. Among the four(4) schools is the school in question i.e. Sylvanus Stall Girls High School, Nagarampalem, Guntur. While so, it is stated that there are 400 churches under the AELC-Society and 300 congregations in various districts. The churches and congregations were organized into six Synods and several Parishes classified as A, B and C. The affairs of the Society are managed by the Central Body of the Society. The 5 elections to the Society are hierarchical i.e. from Parishes, Synod and Central body. 3. As there were disputes between the three groups claiming to be elected, the writ petitions were filed before this Court which culminated in W.A.No.1033 of 2023 and batch dated 03.04.2025, whereunder Justice Kurian Joseph, former Judge of Supreme Court was appointed as ‘Controller’ till the elections are conducted and the controller was also authorized to take assistance of ‘administrator’ in conducting elections and day to day management of the Society. While so, the Petitioner claims to have been removed as Correspondent of the Sylvanus Stall Girls High School, Nagarampalem, Guntur, without any prior notice by Respondent No.8 i.e. the administrator acting at the behest of the controller. 4. It is also stated that the controller and the administrator do not have authorization to take decisions of this nature as they were only permitted to take decisions for day to day running of the Society alone. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. A counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No.6 i.e. District Educational Officer on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 5 also stating that for any change or cancellation of correspondentship, requisite 6 documents and procedure format must be duly submitted to the competent authority i.e. the Collector and District Magistrate for approval and that in this case, Respondent No.8 had issued orders straight away terminating the Petitioner from service. 6. In the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No.8, it is stated that without prior permission of the Society, the petitioner had removed roof to the buildings rented out for residential hostel for the girls of Social Welfare Department owned by the society, which led to an agitation by the inmates of the hostel before the Collector of Guntur District. Therefore, an oral query was posed to the petitioner regarding the same. In response to the oral query, the Petitioner herself addressed a letter on 05.06.2025 and then sought permission to renovate the roofs of the two buildings belonging to Respondent No.7. On 06.06.2025, the Petitioner also addressed a letter to Respondent No.8 admitting to the removal of the roof of the hostel buildings without permission and undertaking not to cause further damage to any structure tendering apology to the administrator. It is also pointed out that a suit was filed by Sri Lam Edwin’s Memorial Minority Educational Society against Respondent No.7 for permanent injunction and an order of status quo was passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur in I.A.No.15 of 7 2021 in O.S.No.43 of 2021 and the removal of the roofs by the Petitioner is in contravention with the status quo order. 7. It is also stated that the Petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 9.06.2025 and an explanation was submitted by the Petitioner thereto on 13.06.2025 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed. It is contended that Respondent No.8 has authority to take decisions for smooth functioning of the Society in terms of the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal referred above. It is also stated that all the facts raised in the counter affidavit are supported by documents and the Petitioner had intentionally suppressed these facts. 8. Heard Ms. Kota Krishna Deepthi, learned proxy counsel for Sri Jada Sravan Kumar and learned Government Pleader for School Education and Senior Counsel N.Subba Rao. 9. The principal ground of challenge in the writ petition is that the Petitioner was removed from the correspondentship without issuing any prior notice. In the counter affidavit, a copy of a show cause notice dated 09.06.2025 was enclosed and a reply given by the Petitioner referring to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2025 was also placed. The petitioner does not dispute this, but would only 8 contend that there is no show-cause notice proposing to remove the petitioner as a correspondent. The show cause notice dated 9.6.2025 mentions as to why appropriate action should not be taken against the petitioner and that, in the opinion of the court would suffice, in the absence of a factual dispute regarding the allegation against the petitioner. 10. Secondly, Respondent No.7 is a Church having educational institutions and churches under its control and there is no control of the State either directly or indirectly. The salary and appointment of the Correspondent are by the Educational Institution-Society with no State role in the appointment process. The fact that A.P.Education Act obligates Educational Institutions to appoint a Correspondent, that per se would not qualify for maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the same is only a regulatory requirement. In a recent judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered these aspects in S.Shobha v. Muthoot Finance Ltd.,1 and summed up the aspects to be determined for maintainability. In that context, a writ petition cannot be maintained as Respondent No.7 is not a State within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 1 2025 INSC 117 9 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY,J Date: 05.03.2026 KLP