2021 Supreme(AP) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Tatakuntla Ganga Rathnam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 20458, 20725, 20755, 20789, 20808, 20816, 20924, 20937, 20942, 20948, 20951, 20963, 20976, 20990, 21013, 21016, 21024, 21038, 21069, 21082, 21084, 21101, 21112, 21293, 21307, 21308, 21371, 21693 of 2020 with 1407 and 1420 of 2021
Decided On : 25-01-2021

Point of law: It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporations Act, 1994 - Section 16 - Constitution of India ,1950 – Articles 226 14, 19 and 21 - Issue of transfers of teachers - Issue of Writ of Mandamus - Petitioners from their respective schools in different areas of different districts, as per transfer schedule issued through proceedings of respondents in pursuance of G.O.Ms School Education (Service. II) Department issued by respondents without taking decision for merger of said schools into their respective Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats despite addressing letters by concerned authorities of Municipal Corporations/Municipalities/Nagar Panchayats to Commissioner Department of School Education to give management/control over schools which are under the control of Panchayat Raj Department as illegal arbitrary and contrary to law and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed

Finding of court: Mandamus may issue to compel person or official in whom a discretionary duty is lodged to proceed to exercise such discretion but unless there is peremptory statutory direction that duty shall be performed mandamus will not lie to control or review exercise of discretion of any board tribunal or officer when act complained of is either judicial or quasi-judicial unless it clearly appears that there has been an abuse of discretion on part of such Court board tribunal or officer and in accordance with this rule mandamus may not be invoked to compel matter of discretion to be exercised in any particular way - This principle applies with full force and effect however clearly it may be made to appear what decision ought to be or even though its conclusion be disputable or however erroneous conclusion reached may be and although there may be no other method of review or correction provided by law

Result: Writ petitions are dismissed