P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE present Writ Appeal is directed against the order made by a learned Single judge in W. P. No. 11694/93 dt. 21-11-1996. The respondents 1, 2, 4, 8, 9 and 10 in the said Writ Petition are the appellants in the present Writ Appeal. The writ petitioner is the 1st respondent and respondents 2 to 5 in the Writ Appeal are respondents 3,5,6 and 7 in the Writ Petition.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent/writ petitioner -Mrs. Anita aiddinyantz filed the Writ petition praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 in the Writ Petition to continue the petitioner as Principal of timpany School, Visakhapatnam till her superannuation by declaring the action of the 1st respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner as Principal of timpany School by the order dt. 10-8-1993, as illegal, arbitrary and unenforceable and for other appropriate orders.

( 3 ) THE 1st respondent in the Writ Appeal, the writ petitioner, is a trained Post graduate with teaching experience of 23 years and she was appointed as Principal of Timpany School on 5-2-1987 and her probation was declared and she was confirmed on 26-9-1987. On 11-8-1993, publication dated 10-8-1993 was made in the local newspaper to the effect that she is no longer the Principal of Timpany School, visakhapatnam. The appellants had sent three months salary in lieu of three months notice which was not accepted by the 1st respondent. The stand taken by the appellants is that Timpany School is not a recognized School under A. P. Education act, 1982 and hence Section 79 of the said act is not applicable in case of termination of an employee of the said School and hence the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable. The Writ Petition was allowed on 21-9-1996 by the learned single Judge holding that timpany School is deemed to be recognized institution under the provisions of A. P. Education Act, 1982 and hence Section 79 of the Act is applicable and it is an Institution imparting education as a public duty and even if it is a private Institution without any aid from the Government, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The appellants, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, preferred the present Writ Appeal.

( 4 ) SRI D. V. Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants had raised a core and sole question in the Writ Appeal about the very maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that Timpany School is not a recognized Institution and hence Section 79 of the A. P. Education Act is not attracted and consequently the Writ Petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India itself is not maintainable. The learned Counsel pointed out to the Certificate issued by the district Educational Officer, Visakhapatnam to this effect in this regard. The learned counsel also had drawn our attention to different provisions of the Delhi School education Act, 1973 and had submitted that by virtue of Section 1 (2) of the said Act, the act is applicable to the whole of Union territory of Delhi. The learned Counsel also had taken us through the findings recorded by the learned single Judge and commented that the said findings cannot be sustained. An attempt also was made to show that inasmuch as Timpany School was established by a private society and it was affiliated to C. B. S. E. , it does not satisfy the definition of private Institution under the a. P. Education Act, 1982. The learned counsel also had placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in BHEL HSS Staff association, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram v. BHEL, New Delhi1.

( 5 ) PER contra, Sri Satyanarayana Prasad, the learned Senior Counsel representing the 1st respondent - writ petitioner, submitted that the Timpany School is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 and imparting education is a public function and the members of the Management are governed by the A. P. Education Act, 1982. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document