M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. Sri Prasada Rao Vemireddy, a practicing Advocate, claiming to be a social activist, while highlighting his social activism, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as pro bono litigation, to declare the action of the first respondent in issuing the Memo No.ESE01-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018 entrusting to fill up the posts on outsourcing basis in Sarva Sikshya Abhiyan (SSA) to manpower supply agencies as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice and also prayed for consequential relief to set-aside the said memo.

2. It is alleged that, the petitioner is a practicing advocate and he is also claiming himself as a social activist aged 54 years, came to know that recruitment of outsourcing staff like teachers, section officers and other subordinate staff members in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan in the State of Andhra Pradesh is being undertaken through outsourcing and entrusted to manpower supply agencies by the first respondent or its governmental agencies i.e., Project Officer. The manpower supply agencies are collecting huge amount in lakhs depending upon the posts they applied, thereby, the unemployed youth are turning in queue to purchase the posts in their respective capacities. The same was lured by the manpower supply agencies and encash the public and unemployed youth. He also contended that the print and electronic media has exposed the same in episodes, on day-to-day basis in their respective newspapers and channels, where fraud and cheating are played by the manpower supply agencies is highlighted. The petitioner also agitated such malpractices of fraud played by the manpower supply agencies and protested before the office of the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. But, no purpose was served. He also submitted a representation before the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to stop illegal recruitment in Sarva Siksha Abhiyan.

3. While so, the second respondent issued proceedings vide RC.No.5101/APSSA/A7/2017 dated 27.06.2018 stating that all the Project Officers in the State were informed to hold the process of selection of staff on outsourcing basis of their respective districts immediately, until further instructions in the matter, treating it as ‘top priority’. Despite such direction, the first respondent has issued Memo NO.ESR01-12029/96/2018-PROG2 SECT-SE-DEPT dated 04.09.2018 directing to gear up academic progress of the institutions. It is contended that, the proceedings issued by the first and second respondents are contradicting each other.

4. The petitioner mainly alleged that, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan Scheme is an educational scheme befitting the unemployed youth, where 70% project cost is sponsored by the Central Government and the remaining 30% project cost is sponsored by the State. The State Government takes up recruitment whenever the posts fell vacant or there is need of recruitment without charging the private agencies and thereby, monitors the entire scheme. It is alleged that, if such process is undertaken, there is every possibility of avoiding fraud by the private agencies and exploitation of unemployed youth and thereby, the process of selection of itself can be set right, as it would benefit the educational institutions itself in the entire State and prayed the relief stated supra.

5. The second respondent, filed counter denying material allegations, inter alia contending that the petition of public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and it is misconceived, since the dispute is with regard to recruitment through outsourcing agency, which is purely a service dispute and public interest litigation cannot be maintained, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and others v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra and others (1998) 7 SCC 273 and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is specifically contended that, when t