1. Challenge to show cause notice for disciplinary action against teachers in aided school — DEO lacked jurisdiction under A.P. Education Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 22524
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J
K. Subramanyam – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
W.P.No.31839 of 2017
Important Points
The District Educational Officer lacks jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Secondary Grade Teachers of aided schools; only the management has such power under the A.P. Education Act and Rules.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATION ACT, 1982 - S.99 read with Ss.20, 21, 79, 83 - A.P. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (ESTABLISHMENT, RECOGNITION, ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION) RULES, 1993 - Rr.3, 19 - Disciplinary Control - Jurisdiction - Show cause notice issued by District Educational Officer against Secondary Grade Teachers of aided school - District Educational Officer lacks jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings - Only management vested with disciplinary power; appeal lies to Government. (Paras 9-12)
(B) JURISDICTION - Significance - Order passed without jurisdiction is nullity - Defect strikes at root of matter - Cannot be cured by consent. (Paras 13-17)
(C) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Art.21, 21-A, 41, 45, 46 - Right to Education - Implicit in right to life - State duty to provide education. (Paras 19-22)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, including a correspondent (now deceased) and two Secondary Grade Teachers of S.K.C.V.S. High School, Proddutur, challenged a show cause notice dated 03.09.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent (District Educational Officer) based on a complaint by a third party. The notice alleged disciplinary action based on a departmental enquiry conducted by the District Administration.
Findings of Court:
The impugned show cause notice was set aside as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction because the District Educational Officer lacked disciplinary power over Secondary Grade Teachers of aided schools under the Act and Rules.
Issues: Whether the District Educational Officer has jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice and initiate disciplinary proceedings against Secondary Grade Teachers of an aided school.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 3 and Rule 19 of the A.P. Educational Institutions Rules, 1993, disciplinary powers against Secondary Grade Teachers of aided schools are vested solely with the management. The District Educational Officer is not the competent authority; appeal against management orders lies to Government. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Result : Writ Petition allowed.
(B) JURISDICTION - Significance - Order passed without jurisdiction is nullity - Defect strikes at root of matter - Cannot be cured by consent. (Paras 13-17)
(C) CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Art.21, 21-A, 41, 45, 46 - Right to Education - Implicit in right to life - State duty to provide education. (Paras 19-22)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, including a correspondent (now deceased) and two Secondary Grade Teachers of S.K.C.V.S. High School, Proddutur, challenged a show cause notice dated 03.09.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent (District Educational Officer) based on a complaint by a third party. The notice alleged disciplinary action based on a departmental enquiry conducted by the District Administration.
Findings of Court:
The impugned show cause notice was set aside as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction because the District Educational Officer lacked disciplinary power over Secondary Grade Teachers of aided schools under the Act and Rules.
Issues: Whether the District Educational Officer has jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice and initiate disciplinary proceedings against Secondary Grade Teachers of an aided school.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Rule 3 and Rule 19 of the A.P. Educational Institutions Rules, 1993, disciplinary powers against Secondary Grade Teachers of aided schools are vested solely with the management. The District Educational Officer is not the competent authority; appeal against management orders lies to Government. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Result : Writ Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- education law
- constitutional law
-
practice and procedure
-
writ jurisdiction
- writ of mandamus (Para 1)
-
writ jurisdiction
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aka Venkataramana
For the Respondents: GP for Revenue (AP), GP for School Education (AP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aka Venkataramana
For the Respondents: GP for Revenue (AP), GP for School Education (AP)
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners challenged notice as beyond jurisdiction; respondents supported based on enquiry. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Writ allowed — Impugned show cause notice set aside as without jurisdiction. (Para 24 , 25 )
4. Which authority has disciplinary control over teachers in aided schools under the A.P. Education Act?
Disciplinary powers are vested with the management, as per Rule 19 of the A.P. Educational Institutions Rules, 1993. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. What is the legal effect of an order passed by an authority without jurisdiction?
Such order is a nullity and void ab initio, and can be challenged at any stage. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. Did the District Educational Officer have jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice to the teachers in this case?
No, because the teachers were Secondary Grade Teachers in an aided school, and disciplinary powers are with the management, not the DEO. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 12 , 24 )
ORDER:
The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following main prayer:
“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the proceedings in RC No. 7925/B5/2017 dated 08.2017 issued by the 3rd Respondent as highly illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of A.P. Education Act and the Rules made thereunder and without power or jurisdiction and consequently quash or set aside the same …”
Brief Facts of the Case :
2. The case of the petitioners is that the S.K.C.V.S.High School was established in the year 1962 by S.K.C.V.S. Charities, Proddutur, Kadapa District. Right from its institution, the school was admitted into grant-in-aid and recognition was also granted on year to year basis from 1962 to 1978. Thereafter, the school was permanently recognized by the competent authority vide proceedings No.7551/D3/78-1 dated 31.08.1979. While so, on the alleged complaint made by one Mr.D.Veerachari of Proddatur Village of Kadapa District, the 3rdrespondent issued a show cause notice vide R.C.No.7925/B5/2017, dated 03.09.2017 against the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them and also sought for the explanation within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of show cause notice. Challenging the said show cause notice, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioners.
3. Heard Sri A.Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents 1 to 4. Perused the material on record.
Arguments of Respective Counsel :
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. Venkataramana submits that the 1st petitioner, who worked as a correspondent of the school, is no more. Hence, no cause of action survives as against the 1st petitioner. So far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, he submits that both are working as Secondary Grade Teachers, in S.K.C.V.S. High School, Proddutur, and had challenged the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing a show cause notice as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel further submits that on 21.09.2017, this Court was pleased to grant an interim stay against the impugned proceedings dated 03.09.2017 and the same has been continuing as on today.
5. On the other hand, respondents have not filed any counter refuting the assertions of the writ petitioners. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education, while supporting the impugned show cause notice dated 03.09.2017 issued by the 3rd respondent, submits that consequent to the representation submitted by one D.Veerachari, the 3rd Respondent District Administration caused enquiry by issuing show- cause notice to the petitioners, wherein, all the allegations levied against the petitioners are held to be proved. He also submits that, as per the instructions issued by the 4th respondent, the instant show-cause notice dated 03.09.2017 has been issued calling for explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against the petitioners.
Analysis of the Court :
6. The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that apparently, the impugned show cause notice issued by the 3rd respondent is beyond the jurisdiction, as the petitioners 2 and 3 are Secondary Grade Teachers in S.K.C.V.S High School, Proddutur, Kadapa District.
7. In this backdrop of the rival submissions asserted by the respective counsels, this court now ventures into admitted facts involved in the Lis. The 1st petitioner, who worked as correspondent to the S.K.C.V.S High School, Proddutur, is no more and the instant case now only pertains to the petitioners 2 and 3, who are working as Secondary Grade Teachers in the S.K.C.V.S High School, Proddutur. The impugned notice dated 03.09.2017 was issued by the 3rd respondent and for the sake of comprehensive view, the s
