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

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Nyapathy Vijay, J
Viswabharati Primary School – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 13322 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vijay Mathukumilli
For the Respondents: GP for School Education

Administrative authorities are required to act upon the recommendations of inspecting officers regarding the renewal of school recognition in accordance with statutory rules within a reasonable timeframe.

Headnote:The petitioner, a private unaided primary school, sought renewal of recognition for the block period 2026-27 to 2034-35 under the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Despite a positive recommendation from the Mandal Educational Officer (Respondent No. 4) following a detailed inspection, the District Educational Officer (Respondent No. 3) failed to grant the renewal, leading to the filing of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The primary issue was whether the inaction of the District Educational Officer in granting renewal of recognition, despite a favorable inspection report, was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court observed that the administrative authority must examine the inspection report in accordance with the applicable rules and government orders to resolve the matter expeditiously. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to the Respondent No.3 to examine the Report of the Respondent No.4 and consider the case for grant of renewal of recognition to the Petitioner’s School preferably within a period of four weeks.

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent, District Educational Officer, Prakasam District, in not granting renewal of recognition to the petitioner Primary School despite the recommendation of the 4th Respondent vide proceedings R.C. No. MEO/GDL/2026 dated 08- 04-2025 and in insisting upon extraneous conditions unrelated to statutory requirements, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the 3rd Respondent to forthwith grant renewal of recognition to the petitioner institution for the block period from the academic years 2026-27 to 2034-35 in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 and the Rules and Government Orders issued thereunder, and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent, District Educational Officer to consider the recommendations of the 4th Respondent, Mandal Educational Officer vide proceedings R.C. No. MEO/GDL/2026, dated 08.04.2025, and to grant renewal of recognition to the Petitioner institution from the academic year 2026- 27 to 2034-35, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such

The Court made the following order:

O R DE R:

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the Respondent No.3 in not granting renewal of recognition to the Petitioner Primary School as illegal and arbitrary.

The Petitioner is a recognized Private Unaided Educational Institution running a Primary School at Giddalur, Prakasam District. Initially, the Petitioner was granted recognition for a period of 10 years commencing from the academic years 2015-2016 to 2024-2025. Subsequently, the Respondents granted extension for a period of one year vide Proceedings dated 17.06.2025. The Petitioner again made a proposal for renewal of recognition for the year 2026-2027 to 2034-35. Thereupon, the Respondent No.4 conducted a detailed inspection and recommended for renewal of the recognition vide Proceedings in Rc.No.MEO/GDL/2026, dated 08.04.2026. However, the Respondent No.3 is not acting thereon. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for School Education submits that the Respondent No.3 would examine the Report of the Respondent No.4, dated 08.04.2025 in terms of the Rules under the Act as expeditiously as possible.

Heard the respective counsel.

Considering the submissions made, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) The Respondent No.3 is directed to examine the Report of the Respondent No.4 dated 08.04.2025 and consider the case of the Petitioner for grant of renewal of recognition to the Petitioner’s School as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks.

ii) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed.

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