Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Sri Raja Cock Shutt Up School vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 May, 2025
4* '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
/ / / / ^ /
WRIT PETITION Nos: 13578.13582.13584.13585,13586 AND 13587 OF
2025
WRIT PETITION NO: 13578 OF 2025 /
Between:
Sri Raja Cock Shutt UP School, Ramachandrapuram, Dr.Br. Ambedkar
Konaseema District. Rep by its Correspondent Cheerla Venkata Ratnam, S/o.
Pedda
Cheerla Suryanarayana, Aged 48 years, R/o. D.No.5-10/a,
Ramalayam, gadarada, Komkonda, East Godavari District.
...PETITIONER X
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Education
department). Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Amalapuram, Dr.Br. Ambedkar
Konaseema District.
5. The Mandal Educational Officer-1, Ramachandrapuram, Dr.Br.
Ambedkar Konaseema District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one
in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the inaction of the 4'^ Respondent
in completing the entire recruitment process to fill the vacant posts of
teachers in the petitioners institution pursuant to proceedings vide
r
Rc.No.2148-BI/2024 dated.05.03.2025 and the proposal to conduct a
computer-based test tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust,
contrary to the rules made in G.O. Ms. No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated
01.01.1994, and the provisions of Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982
and order passed in W.P. No. 7700 of 2025 besides being violative of the
petitioners rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21A of the
th th
Constitution of India, 1950 and consequently direct the 4 and 5
Respondents to immediately complete the recruitment process for vacant
teachers posts in the petitioners institution, before commencement of the
academic year 2025-2026.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court
may be pleased to direct the 4^^ and 5'^ Respondents to immediately
complete the recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the
petitioners' institution, before the commencement of the academic year
2025-2026.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents; GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 13582 OF 2025
Between:
St.Anns Girls Aided Primary School, Jagannaickpur, Kakinada. Rep by its
Correspondent Sanjeevi Nirmala.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Education
department). Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
r,'
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District.
5. The Mandal Educational Officer-1, Kakinada Urban, Kakinada District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one
in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the inaction of the 4*^ Respondent in
completing the entire recruitment process to fill the vacant posts of teachers
in the petitioners institution pursuant to proceedings vide Rc.No. 1213-
B2/2024 dated.25.09.2024 and the proposal to conduct a computer- based
test tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the
rules made in G.O. Ms. No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994, and the
provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and order passed in W.P. No.
7700 of 2025 besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed
under Article 14 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India, 1950 and
consequently direct the Respondents to immediately complete the
recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners institution,
before commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 4''^ & 5'^ Respondents to immediately complete the ^
recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners' institution,
before the commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 13584 OF 2025 /*
Between:
St Josephs Primary School, P.Jupudi, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District. Rep by its
Correspondent Adusumalli Sita Ram.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Education
Department). Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
5. The Mandal Educational Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one
in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the inaction of the Respondent in
completing the entire recruitment process to full the vacant posts of teachers
in the petitioner's institution pursuant to proceedings vide Rc.No.7/A5/2024
dated.13.03.2024 and the proposal to conduct a computer based test
tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the rules
made in G.O. Ms. No.1, Education (P.S.2) dated.01.01.1994, and t he
provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
in W.P.
and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and order passed
No.7700 of 2025 besides being violative of the petitioners' rights guaranteed
under Article 14 and Article 21a of the Constitution of India, 1950 and
consequently direct the 4*^ & 5*^ Respondents to immediately complete the
t '
recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners' institution
before commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 4*^ & 5*'' Respondents to immediately complete the
recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners' institution,
before the commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 13585 OF 2025 /
Between:
Nav Bharat Aided High School, Andrews Nagar, Kakinada, Kakinada District
(erstwhile East Godavari District) Rep by its Correspondent J. Esther Rani,
W/o George Muller, Aged 72 years, R/o. Andrews Nagar, Kakinada.
...PETITIONER /
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Education
department). Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Kakinada,Kakinada District.
5. The Deputy Educational Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one
r
in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the inaction of the 4*'^ Respondent in
completing the entire recruitment process to fill the vacant posts of teachers
vide
in the petitioner's institution pursuant to proceedings
Rc.No.3924/A3/2024 dated.24l 10.2024 and the proposal to conduct a
computer- based test tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust,
contrary to the rules made in G.O. Ms. No.I, Education (P.S.2), dated
01.01.1994, and the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and order
passed in W.P. No. 7700 of 2025 besides being violative of the petitioners'
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21A of the Constitution of
India, 1950 and consequently direct the 4'^ and 5'^ Respondents to
immediately complete the recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in
the petitioners' institution, before commencement of the academic year
2025-2026.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 4^^ and 5'^ Respondents to immediately complete
the recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners
institution, before the commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 13586 OF 2025
Between:
1. EAR Aided High School, Konthamum, Rajamahendravaram, East
Prabhakara Rao.
Godavari District. Rep by its Correspondent Kolamuri
2. EAR Aided Elementary School, Konthamuru,Rajamahendravaram East
Prabhakara Rao.
Godavari District. Rep by its Correspondent Kolamuri
...PETITIONERS
AND
(Education
1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its SecretaryDistrict.
Department), Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur
2 The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.
5. The Deputy Educational Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.
6. The Mandal Educational Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one
in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the inaction of the Respondent in
completing the entire recruitment process to fill the vacant posts of teachers
in the petitioners institutions pursuant to proceedings vide Rc.No.494-
A6/2024 dated.09.09.2024 and the proposal to conduct computer-based
tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to the rules
made in G.O. Ms. No.I, Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994, and the
provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and order passed in W.P. No.
7700 of 2025 besides being violative of the petitioners rights guaranteed
under Article 14 and Article 21A of the Constitution of India, 1950 and
consequently direct the 4'^ Respondents to immediately complete the
recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners' institution,
before commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
\
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the mii petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 4^'' & Respondents to immediately complete the
recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners' institution,
before the commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
WRIT PETITION NO: 13587 OF 2025 /
Between:
SVKP and SKVR Aided High School, Penugonda VVest Godavari District. Rep.
by its Correspondent Kalidindi Ramachandra Raju, S/o K. Satyanarayana
Raju, Aged 74 years, R/o. D.No.20-156, kakileri Road, Penugonda, West
Godavari District.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary (Education
Department). Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Educatiori, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
District.
4. The District Educational Officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
5. The Deputy Educational Officer, Tanuku, West Godavari District.
...RESPONDENTS
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 to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly, one
in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the inaction of the 4'^ Respondent in
completing the entire recruitment process to fill the vacant posts of teachers
in the petitioners institution pursuant to proceedings vide Lr.Rc.No. 1951-
/A3/2024/Court Case dated.23.08.2024 and the proposal to conduct a
computer- based test tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust,
contrary to the rules made in G.O. Ms. No.1, Education P.S.2 dated
01.01.1994, and the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 and Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and order
passed in W.P. No. 7700 of 2025 besides being violative of the petitioners
rights guaranteed under Article 14 and Article 21A of the Constitution of
India, 1950 and consequently direct the 4'^, 5*^ Respondents to immediately /
complete the recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the
petitioners institution, before commencement of the academic year 2025-
2026.
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the wit petition, the High Court may
be pleased to direct the 4*'^ and 5"^ Respondents to immediately complete
the recruitment process for vacant teachers posts in the petitioners'
institution, before the commencement of the academic year 2025-2026.
Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K.P.S. SAILESH REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION
.X
The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN
WRIT PETITION Nos. 13578, 13582, 13584, 13585, 13586 and 13587 of 2025
Common Order:
Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same
this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all these writ petitions by way of
a common order.
For the sake of convenience, W.P.No.13578 of 2025 is filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:-
“…to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly
th
one In the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS the inaction of the 4
Respondent in completing the entire recruitment process to fill
the vacant posts of teachers in the petitioner’s institution
pursuant to proceedings vide Rc.No.2148-BI/2024 dated
05.03.2025 and the proposal to conduct a computer based test
tentatively on 18.05.2025 as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to
the rules made in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (P.S.2), dated
01.01.1994 and the provisions of Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Andhra Pradesh Education
Act, 1982 and order passed in W.P.No. 7700 of 2025 besides
being violative of the petitioners’ rights guaranteed under Article
14 and Article 21-A of the Constitution of India, 1950 and
consequently direct the and 5’^ Respondents to immediately
complete the recruitment process for vacant teachers posts the
petitioners’ institution before co,mmencement of the academic
year 2025-2026 and pass such order or orders….”
2. Heard Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education for the
respondents.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits
that as of now there is no proposal to conduct the Computer Based Test for
the purpose of filling up the posts of Teachers and further he does not dispute
that this Court in W.P.No.7700 of 2025 and batch vide order dated 09.05.2025
interdicted with the process of conducting the Computer Based Test, with a
further direction to the official respondents to follow the procedure laid down
under Rules 12 and 13 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions
(Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under
Private Managements) Rules, 1993 by completing the process within a period
of three (03) weeks from today.
4. In view of the same, these writ petitions are disposed of, in terms of the
orders dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7700 of 2025 and
batch.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
The Registry is directed to enclose a copy of the order in W.P.No.7700
of 2025 and batch, dated 09.05.2025 to this order
//TRUE COPY// Sd/- K J RAJA BABU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTI OFFICER
To,
1. The Secretary (Education Department).State of Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner and Director of School Education, Education
Department, Ibrahimpatnam, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
^ Dis1r!cf^’°^^* Director of School Education, Kakinada, Kakinada
4. The District ^ucational Officer, Amalapuram, Dr.Br. Ambedkar
Konaseema District.
^
5. Ambedkar
The MandalKonaseema
EducationalDistrict.
Officer-1, Ramachandrapuram, Dr Br
6. The District Educational Officer, Kakinada, Kakinada District.
7. The Mandal Educational Officer-1, Kakinada Urban, Kakinada District.
District.
8. The District Educational Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna
9. The Mandal Educational Officer, Ibrahimpatnam, NTR District.
lO.The District Educational Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.
11 .The Deputy Educational Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.
12.The Mandal Educational Officer, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari
District.
13.The District Educational Officer, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District.
14.The Deputy Educational Officer, Tanuku, West Godavari District.
15. The Deputy Educational Officer, Kakinada.
le.One CC to Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]
17.Two CCS to GP for School Education, High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
[OUT]
IS.Three C.D. Copies.
No.7700 of 2025
(Along with copy of the order dated.09.05.2025 in W.P.
enclosed herewith)*
Cnr
/’
HIGH COURT
CNR
DATED:15/05/2025
Vacation Court
COMMON ORDER
WP.Nos.13578,13582,13584,13585,13586 and
13587 of 2025
X 1 9 MAY 2025 Oil
%
Current Section
DISPOSING OF THE W.Ps
WITHOUT COSTS
\
*HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
+ WRIT PETITION NOs: 7036. 7562. 7700. 7725, 7731. 7734, 8003, 8109,
8481 & 9455 of 2025
%09.05.2025
W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch
#Between:
SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU UPPER PRIMARY SPSUP SCHOOL
Gudur, Tirupathi District erstwhile SPSR Nellore District S/o Late Masthanaiah
Aged 58 years R/o D No 213917 N R Peta Guduru Tirupati District Rep by its
Correspondent Manapati Ravindra Babu
Petitioner/s$And:
THE STATE OF AP Represented by its Secretary Education department
Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District and others
….RespondentsICounsel for the Petitioners : Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned
Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7562 of 2025, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva
Ram, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy,
learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.Nos.7700, 7036, 7725, 7731,
7734, 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025;and Sri B. Sreeteja, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of Sri P. Pavan Kumar, learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioner in W.P.No.8003 of 2025”Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao,
G.P for Education<Gist:
>Head Note;
? Cases referred: NIL
2IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
***WRIT PETITION NOs: 7036. 7562. 7700. 7725. 7731. 7734. 8003. 8109.
8481 & 9455 of 2025
W.P.No.7036 of 2025 & Batch
#Between:
SRI POTTI SRIRAMULU UPPER PRIMARY SPSUP SCHOOL
Gudur, Tirupathi District erstwhile SPSR Nellore District S/o Late Masthanaiah
Aged 58 years R/o D No 213917 N R Peta Guduru Tirupati District Rep by its
Correspondent Manapati Ravindra BabuPetitioner
$And:
THE STATE OF AP Represented by its Secretary Education department
Secretariat Velagapudi Amaravathi Guntur District and others.. ..Respondent/Complainant
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 09.05.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may
be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of order may be marked
to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair
copy of the order? Yes/NoGANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
3THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASADWRIT PETITION NOs: 7036. 7562, 7700. 7725. 7731. 7734, 8003, 8109,
8481 & 9455 of 2025COMMON ORDER:
Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in
W.P.No.7562 of 2025, Sri S.V.S.S. Siva Ram, learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of Sri K.P.S. Sailesh Reddy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in
W.P.Nos.7700, 7036, 7725, 7731, 7734, 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025;and Sri
B. Sreeteja, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri P. Pavan Kumar,
learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.8003 of 2025 and SriGurram Ramachandra Rao, learned Government Pleader for Education.
2. These Writ Petitions have assailed the action of the Official
Respondents herein which had introduced Online Test method for selecting
and appointing Teachers in various Schools which are receiving Grant-in-aid.
3. For this purpose, the facts stated in the W.P.No.7562 of 2025 are
referred to, inasmuch as Sri N. Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel for the
Writ Petitioners, has referred to the facts from the said Writ Petition.
4. The prayer sought in W.P.No.7562 of 2025 is as under;
“…pleased to grant an order, direction or writ more so in
the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings
in R.C.NO.143/C2/2024 dt. 19.03.2025 issued by 4*’^respondent
and consequential proceedings R.C.No.858/(A2) BI/2025 dt.
19.03.2025 issued by the 5^^respondent is illegal, arbitrary and
run contrary to the Education act and the rules made under
GO.MS No.1 dt. 1.01.1994 and in contravention of RTE act and
4the rules made thereunder. To declare the actions of the
respondents in issuing the proceedings in R.C No.143/C2/2024
dt. 19.03.2025 issued by 4th respondent and R.C.No.858/(A2)
BI/2025 dt.19.03.2025 issued by 5th respondent is in conflict
with the orders passed by this high court in WP no.31288 of
2023 dt.05.12.2023 and order made in C.C.No.2605 of 2024 dt.
18.09.2024 consequentiy Honourable court may be pleased to
set aside the proceedings of the 4*’^respondents proceedings in
R.C.NO.143/C2/2024 dt.19.03.2025 and the proceedings of the
respondents R.C.No.858/(A2) BI/2025 dt.19.03.2025 and to
pass…”
5. The above prayer would indicate that the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.7562
of 2025 is challenging the Proceedings bearing R.C.No.143/C2/202 4, dated
19.03.2025 (Ex.P.1). The said Proceedings are challenged on the ground that
the said Proceedings issued by the District Educational Officer, Guntur would
run counter to the Provisions of G:O.Ms.No. 1, Education (P.S.2) Department,
dated 01.01.1994. Through the said G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994, the
Andhra Pradesh Government has promulgated the Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and
Control of Schools in Private Management) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred
to as the Rules, 1993).
6. The said Rules, 1993, would govern various aspects of the running of
Schools under the private managements in the State of Andhra Pradesh
including the Aided and Unaided as well as the Minority and Non-minority
Schools.
7. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1993, deals with Appointment of Teaching and
Non-Teaching Staff and Rule 13 deals with the constitution of the Staff
Selection Committee, which reads as follows:
5
‘Rule-12:
Appointment of Staff
(1) The educational agency shall appointstaff as per the
staffing pattern prescribed by Government from time to time. All
staff shall conform to the qualifications prescribed by
Government from time to time;
(2) All the staff teaching as well as non-teaching shall be
recruited through Staff Selection Committee to be constituted by
the educational agency in accordance with these rules;
(3) All the posts shall be advertised in atleast two News
Papers having targe circulation of which one shall be in Telugu;
[(3A) Before filling-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. The competent authority shall however obtain
the permission from the Government before issuing
clearance for filling up of any aided posts.]
(4) All educational Institutions receiving grant in aid from
Government shall notify vacancies to the Employment
Exchange and In addition, advertisements In the News Papers,
that they shall also be required to call the candidates sponsored
by Employment Exchange for test and interview provided that
the persons applying to the post in response to the
advertisement in the news papers should have got registered
their names in any Employment Exchanges In the State.
(5) Aided Schools shall also be required to have a nominee
of the District Educational Officer not below the rank of Deputy
Educational Officer in the Staff Selection Committee. The
educational agency shall fix the selection process
(test/interview) in consultation with the District Educational
Officer or his nominee and shall afford the D.E.O’s nominee a
reasonable opportunity of being present. The selection
however, shall not be vitiated only on the ground of the absence
of D.E.O’s nominee If the educational agency has offered
reasonable explanation. The burden of proving this shall lie with
the educational agency.
(6) The selection of the posts In all private educational
institutions shall conform to the communal rotation roster.
However this shall not apply to minority educational institution
only if they are selecting a candidate belonging to the
concerned minority community. Where such a candidate is fitted
in a vacancy belonging to S.C/S.T., then the S.C/S.T, vacancy
shall be carried forward to the next point.
6
T’-
[(7) The Educational Agency shall be free to appoint
employee/staff to an un-aided post as per subject requirements,
provided they have the prescribed qualification to hold the
posts. The service conditions of un-alded teaching and non
teaching staff shall be contractual in nature between the
educational agency concerned and the appointee. Disputes, if
any, in this shall be adjudicated in a civil court of competent
jurisdiction/Educational Tribunal (as and when constituted) and
without reference to competent authority or the Government.
However, in respect of aided posts, the provision of sub-rules
(4)/(5) and (6) shall apply]
[(8) All appointments made either teaching or non teaching
staff by aided or unaided institutions shall be subject to the
approval of the competent authority. For this purpose the
educational agency shall Inform the competent authority within
one month of the selection. The competent authority shall grant
approval unless the selection has been in violation of these
rules. In order to obviate confusion, it shall be incumbent on the
educational agency to remind the competent authority one
month after the initial communication, if no approval is received.
The burden of proof of having communicated the selection to
the competent authority shall lie with the educational agency;]
(9) The educational agency shall make the appointments
only on the approval as per sub-rule (8) above;
(10) Nothing in this itile shall prevent an educational agency
from making a temporary appointment in a casual vacancy of
unaided post provided that such appointment is not for a period
exceeding 60 days.
Rule-13:
Staff Selection Committee: –
[(1) The Staff Selection Committee for the purpose of filling
up of an aided post other than promotion shall consist of the
following persons as members:
(a) President of educational agency or his nominee;
(b)The Headmaster, who is ex-officio Correspondent/
Secretary/Manager of the Institution;
(c)Two sub]ect experts, to be selected by the educational
agency from the: panel approved by the District
Educational Officer Of these at least one should be the
Headmaster of a recognized school,
(d) An Officer of the Educational Department not below the
rank of Deputy Educational Officer nominated by the
District Educational Officer concerned.
(2) The president of the educational agency can either be the
Chairman; or nominate one of the members of the Staff
Selection Committee to be the Chairman.
(3) The quorum for tho Staff Selection Committee meetings
shall be four of which > the presence of District Educational
Officer’s nominee is cornpulsory.
8.
Vide G.O.Ms.No.43, School Education (PS) Department, dated
09.08.2018, Rule 12 of the Rules, 1993 came to be amended in the year 2018
and Rule 13 was consequently omitted.
9. Essentially, the amendment was made to Rule 12 vide G.O.Ms.No.43,
School Education (PS) Department, dated 09.08.2018 by virtue of which a
new method for the selection process was introduced. This method of
selection was based on the State Level Computer Based Test/Examination,
The
provision for Interview has been dispensed with since the
Test/Examination is computer-based and on a State Level basis. The other
dynamics of Computer Based Examination/Test are also prescribed in the
G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018.
10.
The new method of selection of Teachers by conducting a State Level
Computer Based Test/Examination vide G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018,
became the subject matter of challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions (in
W.P.No. 28919 of 2018 and batch).
11.
In the batch of Writ Petitions in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, the
Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court, vide Judgement dated 16.04.2019,
was pleased to set aside the G.O.Ms.No.43, School Education (PS)
Department, dated 09.08.2018 in its entirety.
8
12. The relevant portion of the Order of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble
High Court, dated 16.04.2019, in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, is usefully
extracted hereunder:
‘P0INTN0.3
Though the respondents raised several contentions with
regard to minority status of the petitioners, this Court, in the
present petitions cannot decide the same, as the constitutional
validity of G.O.Ms.No.43 is itself challenged before this Court
and if this Court strikes down the G.O, which is applicable only
to the minority educational institutions whether aided.
However, only the minority educational institutions who
obtained certificate from the competent authorities as defined
under Section 2(1 )(a) of the National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions Act, 2004, which deal with
establishment, recognition and administration of minority
educational institutions providing an appeal against the order
passed by the competent authority. But, in the present facts, it
is unnecessary to delve upon such an issue. It is for the
government to take appropriate action against the institutions
which are not declared as minority educational institutions as
per the provisions of National Commission for Minority
Educational Institutions Act, 2004. These questions cannot be
decided in the present petitions and the same is left open to
the State to take appropriate action in this regard.
“In view of the foregoing discussion, writ petitions are
allowed declaring G.O.Ms.No.43 as void and unconstitutional,
as it is violative of fundamental right guaranteed under Article
30( 1) of the Constitution of India. ”
13. Due to the quashing of G.O.Ms.No.43 in its entirety, needless to state
that the text of G.O.Ms.No.43 became redundant and a dead-letter in its
entirety, and that the Judgement of the Division Bench has attained finality. In
this view of the matter, the earlier text of Rule 12 of the Rules, 1993 had got
automatically revived.
14. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that the District Educational Officers
of various Districts have tried to revive the content of the dead-letter of
9
■ V
G.O.Ms.No.43 by Executive Proceedings in an indirect manner without any
lawful basis.
15. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners that
the effect of G.O.Ms.No.43 cannot be brought back into life either directly or
indirectly by Executive Orders or Executive Instructions after the said G.O had
on 16.04.2019 in
been unequivocally set aside by the Division Bench
W.P.No.28912 of 2019 and batch.
16. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that Rule 12 came to be
amended vide G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018, and that through the same
G.O., Rule 13 of the Rules, 1993, also came to be repealed. When the
Constitutional validity of this G.O.Ms.No.43 came to be challenged before the
Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch,
the said G.O. was set aside in its entirety vide Judgement dated 16.04.2019.
17. It is also an admitted fact that the Judgement of the Division Bench,
dated 16.04.2019 which set aside the G.O.Ms.No.43 in its entirety, has
attained finality. It is also an admitted fact that the Government of Andhra
Pradesh had not brought into effect any Rule or Regulation for introducing the
State Level Computer Based Test/Examination for appointment of Staff
(Teaching and Non-teaching) in various Government Schools and for Aided
Posts of Teachers.
18. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Writ
Petitioners that the Impugned Proceedings in this batch of Writ Petitions,
10
subjecting candidates to Computer Based selection process, is not backed by
any valid Statute, Rule or Regulation.
19. It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
that what has been expressly set aside, and which had eventually attained
finality, cannot be reintroduced through an indirect method or through a
backdoor method without there being any legal justification.
20. Since it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners
that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had attempted to indirectly introduce
a new system of Examination for selection of Teaching and Non-teaching Staff
in accordance with the dead-letter of a defunct Government Order bearing
G.O.Ms.No.43, it becomes relevant to examine the actual text of
G.O.Ms.No.43 by which Rule 12 was sought to be amended and Rule 13 was
sought to be deleted. Therefore, the amended Rule 12 in terms of
G.O.Ms.No.43 reads as under:
“In the said rules, for rule 12, the following shall be
substituted, namely:-
“12. Procedure for filling up of the posts in Aided
lnstitutions:-( 1) The merit-cum-roster based recruitment
system as is existing be continued. There shall be a separate
roster system for each school. The posts shall be filled up
accordingly. However this shall not apply to minority
educational institution only if they are selecting a candidate
belonging to the concerned minority community. Where such a
candidate is Med against a vacancy belonging to S.C./S.T,
then the S.C./S.T vacancy shall be carried forwarded to the
next recruitment.
(2) The rationalisation exercise shall be taken up every year
in the month of October based on the Aadhaar seeded UDISE
enrolment data as on 30th September of that year. The
recruitment procedure to fill up vacancies shall be taken up
only after completing the promotions, which shall be done on a
regular basis every year.
11
(3) The District Educational Officer or the Regional Joint
Director, as the case may be, shall estimate the number of
posts to be filled in respective unit /School by way of direct
recruitment based on teacher-pupil ratio requirement subject
wise only after affecting promotions.
(4) Regional Joint Director of School Education/District
Educational Officer has to confirm that there are no surplus
teachers/posts in the district and submit the school-wise posts,
required to be filled up in respective unit/ school, by way of
direct recruitment to the Commissioner of School Education.
(5) The Commissioner of School Education, shall issue
notification for filling up of posts for all aided schools of the
State duly informing Government.
(6) Out of the total posts to be filled in the district, 80% of
posts shall be filled with local candidates of the district
remaining 20% would be open to all.
(7)The applicants formqn-teaching posts will have separate
examination as decided by the Commissioner of School
Education from time to time.
(8) The selection process for teaching and non-teaching^
follows:
(a) The selection process shall be based on a State
Level computer based test/examination. There shall
be no interview,
(b) The procedure of examination including total
marks, subjects and the duration of examination shall
be decided by the Government,
(c) Required operational guidelines shall be issued by
Commissioner of School Education. The seiection
process shall be completed within the time schedule
prescribed by the Commissioner of School Education,
(d) Candidates should qualify in the Teacher Eligibility
Test (TET) for recruitment to Aided post,
(e) The Educational qualifications/ Age limit shall be
same as the teachers being recruited for
Government/Local body schools,
(f) An officer, not below the rank of Additional Director
O/o Commissioner of School Education shall be
appointed as convenor for conduct of A-CRT (Aided
common recruitment test) selection process. The
Commissioner of School Education shall nominate the
person to look after the entire recruitment process ”
[Vide G.O.Ms.No. 43, S.E (PS) Dept, dated 9-8-
2018.]
12
21. Sri N. Subba Rao, Ld. Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of
this Court to an Order passed by this Court in another batch of Writ Petitions
by Ld. Single Judge by which the Ld. Single Judge of this Court has directed
the Official Respondents to follow Rule-12 of the Rules, 1993 by issuing
certain directions vide Order dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and
batch. The relevant portion of the Order of the Ld. Single Judge dated
05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch is usefully extracted
hereunder:
“9. In view of the above stand taken by the
Government, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of
with the following directions:
i) 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;
ii) In future also, whenever vacancies arise, the
institutions have to make applications to the
Competent authorities for filling up the vacancies;
Hi) On such applications, the Competent
authorities shail 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 Othersi and
Ester Axene Res. High School and Others V.
13State of Andhra Pradesh and Others. 2002 (1)
ALD 96; MANU/AP/0045/2019.
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,
. tr
22. Following the said Order another Writ Petition which was filed by the
Writ Petitioner in W.P.no.7562 of 2025 came to be disposed of by the Ld.
Single Judge in W.P.No.31288 of 2023 vide Order dated 05.12.2023 (Ex.P.9),
in which, Ld. Single Judge had extracted the relevant portion Para-9 of the
Order dated 05.01.2023 in W.P.no.30927 of 2022 and batch. Ld. Senior
Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to various provisions of the
Rules, 1993, which were brought into effect vide G.O.Ms.No.1 Education
(PS.2) Department dated 01.01.1994. Ld. Senior Counsel has drawn the
attention of this Court to Rule-2(b) of the 1993 Rules with regard to the
definition of ‘Educational Agency’. He had also drawn the attention of this
court to Rule-12 Sub Rule (1) and Rule-10 Sub Rule (2). Ld. Senior Counsel
has taken this Court through the Sub Rules (3) (a), Sub Rules 4 to 6, and Sub
Rule 8 and also Rule-13. He would submit that the reference to G.O.Ms.No.75
School Education (PS-2) Department dated 23.09.2002 (Ex.P.3) (Reference
No.2) in the impugned Order dated 19.03.2025(Ex.P.1) has no relevance to
the issue on hand at all. He would submit that placing reliance on
G.O.Ms.No.75 School Education (PS-2) Department dated 23.09.2002
(Ex.P.3) would itself indicate complete non-application of mind on the part of
the District Educational Officer in passing the impugned Order dated
1419.03.2025. He would submit that the said G.O.Ms.No.75 School Education
(PS-2) Department dated 23.09.2002 (Ex.P.3) was issued as a onetime
measure and therefore, the same has no relevance to the issue on hand. Ld.Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Section 7 of the
Education Act which indicates that the Management is responsible for
implementation of the Act.
23.
Sri S.V.S.S.Siva Ram, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.P.S.
Saiiesh Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners (in W.P.Nos.7036, 7700,
7725, 7731, 7734, 8109, 8481 & 9455 of 2025) has submitted that the Deputy
Educational Officer (Respondent No.5 in W.P.No.7036 of 2025) therein had in
fact issued Proceedings vide Letter Rc.No:01/Spl-Aided Recruitment/DYEO-
GDR/2025 dated 13.02.2025 prescribing the Rules and procedure to be
followed for conducting the Written Test for recruitment to the Teacher posts.
Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that when the Writ
Petitioners were making efforts to conduct the Written Test, the impugned
Proceeding dated 22.03.2025 came to be issued by the District Educational
Officer (Respondent No.4 in W.P.No.7036 of 2025) seeking to conduct a
Computer Based Test (CBT) without following the Staff Selection Committee
procedure as mandated under Rule 12 and Rule 13 of the Rules, 1993. He
would submit that this is a sudden ‘U-Turn’ taken by the Official Respondents
without any legal-basis. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners has also assailed
the power of the Respondents to deviate from the Rules prescribed under
G.O.Ms.No.1 dated 01.01.1994.
15
24. Sri Gurram Ramachandra Rao, Ld. Government Pleader for Education
has filed Counter-Affidavit sworn by the Regional Joint Director of School
Education, Guntur District in W.P.No.7562 of 2025. Along with the Counter-
Affidavit, a Stay Vacate Application also has been filed. He has drawn the
attention of this Court to the impugned Memo dated 19.03.2025, under which.
the Respondent No.2 has proposed to conduct Computer Based Test (CBT)
to avoid conflict among the candidates. It is to be noted that vide the Interim
Order dated 24.03.2025 in W.P.No.7562 of 2025 in Para No.6, this Court had
held as under:
“6. Having regard to these facts, this Court,
prima facie, is of the view that the Officiai
Respondents have deviated from the procedure
which has been laid in Rules 12 & 13 of the Rules
1993. Accordingly, the impugned Proceedings
bearing Rc.No.143/C2/2024 dated 19.03.2025
(Ex. P.1) shall remain suspended till the next listing.
The examination which is now sought to be
conducted may go on but the Official Respondents
shall not undertake any further processing with
regard to the examination, which is scheduled today
and would have been already commenced, until the
next listing or until the further Orders of this Court.
”
25. Ld. Government Pleader for Education had submitted that the
G.O.Ms.No.43 dated 09.08.2018, insofar as the Computer Based Examination
procedure is concerned (in terms of the amended Rule-12 (8)) is concerned
the Division Bench has not expressly set aside the said procedure. In Para-17
of the Counter-Affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3 in April-2025, the
Respondents would also admit that a Staff Selection Committee has to be
formed by the Institution and District Educational Officer; that the
16
advertisement then has to be given for recruitment of posts; and, that the
test/interview shall be conducted vi/ith the District Educational Officer or their
nominee. However, at this stage, Ld. Counsel for the Respondents would
submit that as there is no provision in the Rules to conduct a Computer Based
Test and also to prevent the possibility of the Institutions in indulging correct
practices in writing the written test, in the interest of teachers, the Official
Respondents herein have conceived a transparent mode of testing and since
the same is being done bonafide, the District Educational Officer or the
Competent Authority can always prescribe such procedure.
26. It is also stated by the Ld. Government Pleader that about 711
Applications have been received when the Official Respondents have notified
the selection process online. This figure is vehemently disputed by the Ld.
Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners. He would also submit that
the method of test is prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS-2) Dept., dt.
01.01.1991 and therefore the Official Respondents have a degree of latitude
to decide the method of examination and also with regard to short-listing of the
Applications.
arise for
27. In the light of the above facts, the following issues
consideration;
/. Whether the method suggested by the District Educational
Officer, dated 19.03.2025 (Ex.P.1), is in effect the same as
that of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018 (which stood
quashed in its entirety)?
17
/■/. If SO, whether the Government is permitted to either directly or
indirectly introduce a system that stood set aside by an Order
of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court dated
16.04.2019, in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch?
Hi. Whether it is permissible for the Executive to introduce a
method through an Executive Instruction or an Executive
Order, which stood expressly set aside by the Division Bench
of this Hon’ble High Court?
iv. Whether the Impugned Proceeding dated 19.03.2025 bearing
Rc.No.143/C2/2024 (Ex.P.1) is sustainable in law, in the light
of the Order of the Division Bench striking down the
G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept, dated 09.08.2018 and also in
the light of the Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dated
05.01.2023 in W.P.No:30927 of 2022 and batch?
ANAYALSIS:
28. Although, Ld. Senior Counsel had extensively referred to various
provisions of the Education Act as well as the Rules-1993, which have also
been referred to herein above, for the sake of brevity, this Court has not
extracted the entire provisions of the statute. Although, several contentions
have been raised by the Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioners as well as the Ld.
Government Pleader, the issues fall in a very narrow compass as indicated
above. The State of Andhra Pradesh has promulgated the Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and
Control of Schools in Private Management) Rules, 1993 and had brought the
said Rules into effect through the G.O.Ms. No.1 (PS-2) Department, dated
01.01.1994. Rule-12 of the Rules 1993 deal with ‘appointment of teaching
and non-teaching staff. On 09.08.2018, Rule-12 was amended vide
18G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018. This Rule had dispensed
with the written examination-cum-interview and had introduced Computer
Based System of examination apart from encompassing the minority
institutions also into the fold of Computer Based Testing (CBT). It was this
amended Ruie-12 vide G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018 that
came to be assailed before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court. The
Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, vide Order dated 16.04.2019 in
W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch, was pleased to allow the Writ Petition by
setting aside the amendment made to Rule-12 that was brought into the effect
vide G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018. This Order has
attained finality. Thereafter, this Court had upheld the provisions of Rule-12
and had also reiterated that the procedure laid down in Rule-12 must be
followed for the purpose of appointing teaching and non-teaching staff through
the Staff Selection Committee and that the said procedure prescribes conduct
of Written test along with Interview. It is also contemplated that the
educational agency shall conduct the selection process when once the
representative on behalf of the Official Respondents, including the subject
experts, are appointed.
29. In the light of the above discussion, and also by taking into account the
facts which have attained finality, particularly where the earlier procedure of
conducting Written Test and Interview for making appointments of Teaching
and Non-Teaching staff had been dispensed with vide G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E.
(PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, had been set aside by the Division Bench of
19this Court and also in the light of the fact that the order has attained finality,
this Court is of the opinion that until and unless the legislature makes an
amendment to the Rules 1993, by introducing Computer Based Test (CBT)
expressly dispensing with the system of Written Test and Interview, the
Executive is not entitled to introduce a new system.
30. Howsoever laudable the object of the proposed conduct of Computer
Based Test (CBT) may be, the same cannot be introduced without being
backed-up by a legislation or a subordinate legislation. It certainly cannot be
done through an executive fate either in the form of an executive instruction or
executive order.
31. When the system which had been introduced for conducting Computer
based test had been expressly set aside by striking down G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E.(PS) Dept., dated 09.08.2018, the state cannot introduced the same system
indirectly by an executive order or an executive instruction, for, what you
cannot do directly, you cannot do it indirectly either.
32. Although, the Court takes note of the increase in the competition and
also increase in the number of applications for filling up the teacher posts, thestate may take steps in bringing in a suitable legislation or subordinate
legislation for introducing the new system that may be commensurate with the
current needs and exigencies. Till such time, the State has not brought in alegislation or subordinate legislation by amending the Rule-12 and by deleting
the Rule-13 of the Rules-1994, the State cannot introduced the ComputerBased Test (CBT).
20
•N .
33. In the light of the above discussion and analysis, the issues framed
hereinabove are answered in the following manner:
/. Whether the method suggested by the District Educational
Officer, dated 19.03.2025 (Ex.P.1), is in effect the same as
that of G.O.Ms.No.43, dated 09.08.2018 (which stood
quashed in Its entirety)?
33.1. The current method of introducing computer based test in terms of the
dated
impugned Order is in effect the same as that of G.O.Ms.No.43
09.08.2018, which stood quashed in its entirety.
a. If so, whether the Government is permitted to either directly or
indirectly introduce a system that stood set aside by an Order
of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court dated
16.04.2019, in W.P.No.28912 of 2018 and batch?
33.2. In the light of the above answer, this Court holds that the Government
is not permitted to either directly or indirectly introduce the same system which
stood quashed by this Court, vide Order dated 16.04.2019 in W.P.No.28912 of
2018 & batch.
Hi. Whether it is permissible for the Executive to introduce a
method through an Executive Instruction or an Executive
Order, which stood expressly set aside by the Division Bench
of this Hon’ble High Court?
33.3. In the absence of a legislation, the Government is not permitted to
introduce the system, that stood expressly set aside, either through an
executive instruction or through an executive order.
iv. Whether the Impugned Proceeding dated 19.03.2025 bearing
Rc.No.143/C2/2024 (Ex.P.1) is sustainable in law, in the light
of the Order of the Division Bench striking down the
G.O.Ms.No.43, S.E. (PS) Dept, dated 09.08.2018 and also in
the light of the Order passed by the Ld. Single Judge dated
05.01.2023 in W.P.No.30927 of 2022 and batch?
21
33.4. In view of the above, this Court categorically holds that the impugned
Proceedings, compelling the private management to undertake the process of
computer based test/examination is bad in law.
34. In this view of the matter, all these Writ Petitions stand allowed. The
Impugned Proceedings (in all the Writ Petitions) directing the educational
institutions to subject the applicants for the post of teachers to a Computer
Based Test are hereby set aside. However, having regard to the fact that the
schools are now on summer recess and that by the date the Schools would be
re-opened, there is a requirement for the Schools to appoint the Teachers at
the earliest for the purpose of preparedness. For the purpose of achieving
this preparedness, there shall be a direction to the Official Respondents to
follow the procedure laid down in Rules 12 and 13 of the Andhra Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and
Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 by completing
the process within a period of three (03) weeks from today.
35. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
Date: 09.05.2025
DSV/MNR/JKS
L.R Copy to be marked
[ad_1]
Source link