Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, V.BHASKARA RAO
State Of A.P. - Appellant
Versus
V.S.S.High School, Ramanagar, Visakhapatnam - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-89
EDUCATION - GRANT-IN-AID - VALIDITY OF ACT 22 OF 1988 - WHETHER THE ACT HAS REMOVED THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT, OR WHETHER IT HAS MERELY SOUGHT TO INEFFECTUAL THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT WITHOUT REMOVING THE BASIS OF THOSE JUDGMENTS - WHETHER THE ACT IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE OF THE STATE LEGISLATURE - WHETHER THE ACT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh Legislature enacted Act 22 of 1988, which amended the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, and the Grant-in-Aid Code. The Act added a new condition for the admission of private educational institutions to grant-in-aid, namely, that they must be recommended by a High Level Committee constituted by the Government. Several writ petitions were filed challenging the validity of the Act, contending that it was an attempt to override the judgments of the Court and was, therefore, incompetent.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature and that it was consistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The Court further held that the Act had removed the basis of the judgments of the Court, as it had fundamentally altered the conditions on which the decisions of the Court were based.
Issues: 1. Whether the Act has removed the basis of the judgments of the Court, or whether it has merely sought to ineffectual the judgments of the Court without removing the basis of those judgments? 2. Whether the Act is within the legislative competence of the State Legislature? 3. Whether the Act is consistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Act had removed the basis of the judgments of the Court, as it had fundamentally altered the conditions on which the decisions of the Court were based. The Court noted that the Act had added a new condition for the admission of private educational institutions to grant-in-aid, namely, that they must be recommended by a High Level Committee constituted by the Government. This condition was not present in the previous law, and it had the effect of changing the conditions on which the Court had based its judgments. 2. The Court held that the Act was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. The Court noted that the State Legislature had the power to make laws on the subject of education, and that the Act was a valid exercise of that power. 3. The Court held that the Act was consistent with the provisions of Part III of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Act did not violate any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ appeals and contempt appeals, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court also directed the High Level Committee to process the cases of all private educational institutions which had applied for being admitted to grant-in-aid under the aforesaid three G. Os. , and finalize the same within a period of four months from the date of the judgment.
( 1 ) THE only question arising in this batch , of Writ Appeals, Writ; petitions, and Contempt Appeals relates to the, constitutional validity of andhra Pradesh Private Educational Institutions Grant-in-aid (Regulation) act, being Act 22 of 1988. For a proper appreciation of the said question it is necessary to examine the circumstances and events which led to the passing of the Act.
( 2 ) BESIDES the schools and Colleges established and maintained by the State and local authorities, a number of Schools and Colleges have been established in the State by various individuals, societies, and other institutions. Which can be referred to as "private educational institutions". Many of these private educational institutions have been receiving aid from the state, called grant-in-aid . The aid is given not only for paying salaries to the teaching staff, but also to non-teaching staff, and for building, library, and various other purposes. In 1977 the Government took a policy decision contained in G. O. Ms. No. 725, Education (F) Department - dated 7-7-1977. The decision was two-fold, namely, (i) to admit to grant- in-aid, according to a phased programme spread over three years (1977- 1980 ). all un-aided institutions existing on 1-4-1977, provided! such institutions have been started with required approval and in accordance, with the Rules, and provided further that they complete the stipulated) period of existence and satisfy the conditions prescribed; and; (ii) no new educational institution opened after 1-4-1977 shall be eligible for any grant- in-aid in future. The opening of new educational institutions (Schools and colleges) shall normally be either under the Government, or under the legal-government sector.
( 3 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the aforesaid policy decision, the Government permitted opening of several new Colleges and Schools in private sector even after 1-4-1977. We are not concerned with the reasons therefor. It, however, appears that while granting the establishment of such private institutions, it was stipulated that such Institutions shall not ask for, and shall not be entitled to any grant-in-aid. The said stipulation, of course, did not prevent these institutions from agitating for being admitted to grant-in-aid. The Government succumbed to this pressure in three steps/ slages, as would be evident from the following G. Os : (1) G. O. Ms. No. 344, Education (SSE) Department, dt, 22-7-1985: under this GO, the Government"decided to admit to grant-in-aid all additional sections and posts permitted to be opened by the Government, or the competent authority, in the schools already admitted in grant-in-aid prior to 1-4-1977 with effect from 1-6-1985". It appears from the recitals in the G. O. that the schools which were admitted to grant-in-aid prior to 1-4-1977 were permitted to open several additional new Sections and also to create new posts in their schools. These schools were agitating for admitting the faid additional Sections and posts to grant-in-aid, without the limitation of prescribed period of 5 years (in the case of Boys Schools), 3 years (in the case of Girls schools), and 4 years (in the case of Oriental schools ). It also appears that by the date of the said G. O. . the Director of school Education had submitted proposals for issue of orders admitting the additional Sections/posts to aid. It is on the basis of the s iid proposals that the aforesaid decision was taken by the Government. The G. O. also shows that the additional financial commitment on this score was also worked out. It was in the sum of Rs. 2,21,56,314/ -. Paragraph 5 of tins go. , however, stated specifically: "this order does not authorize payment. Separate orders will be issued giving details of the schools, Sections/ Posts admitted to aid based on workload, scales of pay, amount to be released to each school etc: Releases 10 Schools should be made only with reference to that orders. . . . . . ". (2) G. O. Ms. No. 424, Educ
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
