Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.HANUMANTHU, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
K.C.High School, Korthareddypalem, Guntur - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P., Education Department, Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 12-31-96
ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (ESTABLISHMENT, RECOGNITION, ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF SCHOOLS) RULES, 1988 - RULE 15 - VALIDITY - APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS AND NON-TEACHING STAFF - PROCEDURE - SELECTION COMMITTEE - APPROVAL OF APPOINTMENTS - RESERVATION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASSES - REGULARISATION OF IRREGULAR APPOINTMENTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, private managements of primary and secondary schools and their associations, challenged the vires and validity of Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools) Rules, 1988, which prescribed the procedure for appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff in private schools.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Rule 15 was not unconstitutional and was a reasonable and regulatory measure to ensure proper educational standards and to prevent irregular or improper appointments. The Court also held that the requirement of confining the selection to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange was not arbitrary or unreasonable, as it ensured that unemployed youth who had been on the rolls of the Employment Exchange for a long time got an opportunity for employment.
Issues: 1. Whether Rule 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools) Rules, 1988 was unconstitutional? 2. Whether the requirement of confining the selection to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange was arbitrary or unreasonable? 3. Whether the appointments made in violation of Rule 15 could be regularised?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Rule 15 was not unconstitutional as it was a reasonable and regulatory measure to ensure proper educational standards and to prevent irregular or improper appointments. The Court also held that the requirement of confining the selection to the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange was not arbitrary or unreasonable, as it ensured that unemployed youth who had been on the rolls of the Employment Exchange for a long time got an opportunity for employment. 2. The Court held that the appointments made in violation of Rule 15 could be regularised, but only after a review of the performance and qualifications of the teachers by a committee of officials. The Court directed the government to constitute such committees and to complete the review process within four months.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions: 1. The government will constitute a committee of officials to review the performance and qualifications of the teachers who have been irregularly appointed. 2. The process of scrutiny by the committee shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 3. The respondents concerned will extend the benefit of grant-in-aid for the posts held by these teachers, to the teachers found suitable for continuance, with effect from 1-4-1997 provided they have been appointed against clear vacancies and sanctioned posts. 4. As far as those teachers whose appointments were once approved by the competent Officer of Education Department but later on the approval was withdrawn without notice on the ground that the procedure as per Rule 15 had not been followed, they shall be continued unless any subsequent disqualification comes in their way. They shall be paid salaries from out of the State funds from 1-1-1997 onwards.
( 2 ) IN some of the Writ Petitions, interim directions were granted not to insist upon the conditions prescribed in Rule 15 in the matter of appointment of teachers. In some of the writ Petitions, interim directions were granted to the effect that the respondents should not take any action against the petitioners pursuant to G. O. Ms. No. 524. In some of the Writ Petitions, either no interim orders were granted in favour of the petitioners or the interim directions granted initially had expired by efflux of time or they were vacated. Some of the Writ petitions are filed by minority educational institutions who seek aid from the government for operating the posts of teachers in their respective schools. The conditions stipulated in the aforementioned Rules have to be fulfilled by the minority educational institutions as well if they want to have financial aid from the government.
( 3 ) THE contentions raised in the affidavits filed in support of Writ Petitions are, firstly, with regard to vires and constitutional validity of the Rule and secondly with regard to the applicability of the Rule. Arguments were also addressed on the question whether in the face of communications issued by the d. E. Os. of Guntur and Krishna that the procedure of sending a requisition to the employment Exchange would be applicable only to those institutions employing staff of more than 25, the appointments made in the interregnum between publication of Rules and the clarification to the contra received subsequently are saved.
( 4 ) IN the additional affidavit filed, it is contended that even if appointments are irregular in the sense that the names were not obtained through the Employment exchange, such appointments ought to be regularised as has been done by the government in similar situations, for example, regularisation of services of daily-waged and contingent employees in government and Public Sector establishments, part-time lecturers working in aided colleges and so on.
( 5 ) THE Rules A. P. Educational institutions (Establishment, Recognition, administration and Control of Schools) rules, 1988 were framed by the State government in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 18, 20 and 21 read with section 99 of the A. P. Education Act in supersession of the Rules issued in g. O. Ms. No. 60, Education, dated 28-1-1986. The Rules relate to establishment, registration, recognition administration and control of all categories of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
