SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Telangana) 537

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Sri Ramachandra High School – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana and others – Respondents
W.P. No. 33938 of 2021
Decided On : 03-10-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an educational institution, with a history of providing education in a particular medium, may be entitled to permanent recognition for that medium under Section 22(1) of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.

Headnote:

Recognition - Educational Institution - Telangana Education Act, 1982 - Section 22 - [ENGLISH MEDIUM EDUCATION] - [EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION] - [Section 22 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982] - The court discussed the petitioner's claim for recognition for English medium education under Section 22 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982. The court analyzed the historical recognition granted to the institution and the provisions of Section 22, ultimately allowing the writ petition and declaring that the institution has permanent recognition for English medium education under Section 22(1) of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's institution, established by the petitioner's grandfather, claimed recognition for English medium education under Section 22 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982. The institution had a history of providing education in both English and Telugu mediums, and the petitioner sought protection under Section 22(1) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the institution had a long history of providing education in English medium and had obtained permanent recognition for English medium education. The court analyzed the historical recognition granted to the institution and the provisions of Section 22, ultimately allowing the writ petition and declaring that the institution has permanent recognition for English medium education under Section 22(1) of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's institution was entitled to recognition for English medium education under Section 22 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the historical recognition granted to the institution and the provisions of Section 22 of the Telangana Education Act, 1982. The court concluded that the institution has permanent recognition for English medium education under Section 22(1) of the Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and declared that the petitioner's institution has permanent recognition for English medium education under Section 22(1) of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.

ORDER :

Heard the learned senior designated counsel Mr Pratap Narayan Sanghi appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The case of the Petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition, in brief, is as follows :

    a) The petitioner’s grandfather late Sri. Ramchander Agarwal opted for Kothagudem Town, which was an agency area and started a school under a tin shed, in his own land and the Singareni Collieries who was the original lessee for the entire agency area offered land to petitioner’s grandfather for starting the institution. Originally, he started the institution with a school and subsequently expanded the institution with three different branches, one a co-education school, secondly an exclusive girls school, and thirdly an exclusive boys school. Thereafter, he decided to start a college and consequently in the year 1964, he started a degree college.

b) Thereafter, the petitioner has also dedicated his services for uplifting of the said area and the institutes. Keeping the agency area in mind and also having foresightedness, the petitioner’s Grand-father and father from the beginning of the Institute was concentrating to provide education in English Medium. More so, while running institution in Telugu Medium, the petitioner was simultaneously running English Medium institution for past more than 70 years without any obstruction. A parallel section for English medium education was started by the Institute and the same was permitted by the then Competent Authority vide various proceedings.

c) Since 1962 onwards the Petitioner Institute was running the institute in both English Medium as well as in Telugu Medium. Subsequently, the Telangana Education Act, 1982 came into force on 27.01.1982 wherein Section 22 protects the right and privilege of all the Educational institutions which was in existence prior to coming into force of the Telangana Education Act, 1982.

d) As there was no demand for Telugu Medium admissions, the petitioner was pursuing with the Department to either transfer the Telugu Medium Teachers to English Medium or to accommodate them in other institutes in public interest and this issue had caused some problem among the Teachers Union and thereby the 2nd Respondent issued the Proceedings to take their permission which is in contrary to law. Furthermore, there are around 324 students studying in English Medium and there are 14 teaching staff and 7 non-teaching staff.

e) Thereafter, the 4th and 5th Respondents in a highhanded manner refused to accept nominal rolls of Class X students for the year 2020-21 wherein, the same being Board Examination. Thus, the petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent so that with his intervention the students could write the examination. However, the 4th Respondent issued a Press Note on 30.11.2021 informing the public that the petitioner’s institution is having no recognition, which is absolutely erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. More so, the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 have no jurisdiction, power or authority to break the issue of recognition. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Vacate Stay Petition is filed by the 4th Respondent in I.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.P. No. 33938 of 2021 praying to vacate the interim order granted by this court vide dated 15.12.2021 in I.A. No.1 of 2021 in W.P. No. 33938 of 2021 and dismiss the Writ Petition

4. Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4, in brief, is as under:

    a) The petitioner’s grandfather started Telugu medium institution only, subsequently without obtaining any recognition for English medium the petitioner is running the school. The Petitioner completely closed Telugu medium which was an aided institution and in view of closure of Telugu medium during 2019, aided staff were temp

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        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

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon Back to top