Telangana High Court

Thirugamalla Satvik vs The State Of Telangana on 17 October, 2022

Bench: K.Lakshman

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

WRIT PETITION Nos.6776 OF 2017 AND 10202 OF 2019

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Mr. K. Vasanth Rao, learned counsel for petitioner in

W.P. No.10202 of 2019 and Ms. Neelima, learned counsel

representing Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for petitioner in

W.P. No.6776 of 2017, and Mr. D.L. Pandu, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Telangana Board of Intermediate Education and

learned Government Pleader for Higher Education appearing for the

respondents.

2. W.P. No.6776 of 2017 is filed by Sri Ramakrishna

Vidyalayam (for short 'the School'), represented by its Correspondent,

Mr. T. Muralikrishna, to declare the action of respondent No.4 in

issuing proceedings in Rc.No.4657/B3-3/C4/RR/2011, dated

10.01.2014 rejecting the applications of the petitioner for according

renewal of recognition to Classes I to V (TM) for the Academic Year

1999-2000 and for grant of permission for starting Classes VI to X

during the Academic Year 2002-03 as illegal, and for a consequential

direction to grant the aforesaid relief.
2
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

3. W.P. No.10202 of 2019 is filed by Mr. Thirugamalla Satvik

and Ms. Thirugamalla Himamshuka, minor son and daughter of Mr. T.

Muralikrishna, Correspondent of the aforesaid School (who are

hereinafter referred to 'the Students') to declare the action of

respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein in not permitting them to write

Intermediate 2019 First Year Examination as illegal and for a

consequential direction to permit them to appear for Supplementary

Examination of Intermediate First Year 2019 commencing from

25.05.2019 onwards.

4. The lis involved in both these writ petitions and the parties

are common and, therefore, they were heard together and are being

disposed of by way of a common order.

5. CASE OF THE SCHOOL AND STUDENTS:

i) It is relevant to note that the School filed the aforesaid writ

petition No.6776 of 2017 challenging the proceedings dated

10.01.2014 issued by respondent No.4 rejecting the request made by

the School seeking permission to accord renewal of recognition to run

Classes I to V and to open Classes VI to X. Vide the said order,

respondent No.4 had instructed the School to submit fresh proposals

as per the checklist communicated to the Correspondent on
3
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

05.10.2013 by following the Government Orders as on date while

fulfilling the required norms since as on date, the School failed to

submit the proposals as per norms, instead it has given representation

through letter pads only.

ii) According to the School, it was established in 1991 initially

to run Classes from I to V by obtaining necessary orders from

respondent No.4 dated 03.09.1993. Vide the aforesaid proceedings,

respondent No.4 had accorded permission to the School to run the

Classes I to V [Telugu Medium (T/M)] during the Academic Year

1993-94. Vide proceedings, dated 19.02.1995, respondent No.4 had

accorded renewal of the School for the Academic Years 1994-95 to

1998-99.

iii) The School had submitted application on 10.10.2001

seeking renewal of recognition in respect of Classes I to V for the

Academic Year 1999-00 onwards and also sought permission to start

Classes VI to X with an intention to upgrade the School. Despite

receiving and acknowledging the said application, respondent No.4

did not act upon the same.
4
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

iv) The School had also submitted several representations to

respondents including respondent No.1, who in turn called for specific

remarks and opinion from respondent No.3 i.e., the Regional Joint

Director of School Education, Warangal, along with report of

respondent No.4, vide its letter dated 19.10.2001. Pursuant to the

same, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 18.02.2022 called for specific

remarks from respondent No.4. Even then, there is no response from

the respondents and they neither rejected the application submitted by

the School, nor accorded renewal and permission as sought by the

School in its application dated 10.10.2001.

v) Therefore, the School had filed a writ petition vide W.P.

No.3476 of 2003 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the

said application dated 10.10.2001. Vide order dated 08.12.2003, this

Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents

therein, more particularly, Competent Authority, respondent No.3

therein i.e., District Educational Officer, Khammam, to consider the

request of the School for grant of permission for running Classes VI to

X, and pass appropriate orders within a period of three (03) weeks

from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. This Court also
5
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

made it clear that it is open to the School to file an additional

representation bringing to the notice of the Competent Authority

regarding fulfilling of the required norms in support of the relief for

recognition of Classes VI to X. Despite the said order, respondent

No.4 failed to comply with the said order and did not pass any order

on the application dated 10.10.2001 submitted by the School. The

School had submitted several representations.

vi) It is relevant to note that the Correspondent of the School in

paragraph No.5 of the writ affidavit specifically stated as follows:

"....I submit that expecting permission from the District
Educational Officer, Khammam, the petitioner started
classes VI to X and admitted students for the said classes. I
submit that several batches of class X students have
completed their studies and appeared for the SSC Public
Examinations through different schools and by way of
Private Candidates. I submit that the District Educational
Officer, Khammam has slept over the applications
submitted by the petitioner for renewal of recognition for
classes I to V and permission for classes VI to X since
more than 15 years."

vii) It is further contended by the School that it has made

representations to several authorities. As per the instructions of
6
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

respondent No.4, it has submitted another set of application for grant

of permission for up-gradation of existing school in Form No.1 on

31.10.2013. Despite receiving the same, respondent No.4 did not act

upon it.

viii) In view of the formation of New Districts, Yellandu Town

is forming part of Bhadradri - Kothagudem District. On regular

persuasion, respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014,

informed the School that the request of the petitioner for renewal of

Classes I to V and to accord permission to start Classes VI to X is not

feasible and instruct the School to submit fresh proposals as per the

checklist communicated to the petitioner on 05.10.2013. The said

proceedings dated 10.01.2014 is in violation of the Rules framed in

G.O.Ms.No.1 (Education), dated 01.01.1994 and also in violation of

the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.3476 of 2003.

ix) The School has been running Classes VI to X since 2001

onwards, and since respondent No.4 has issued impugned proceedings

informing that the said proposals of the School cannot be considered

and, therefore, the School had submitted representations dated

21.10.2016 and 06.01.2017 requesting respondent No.1 for relaxation
7
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

of the said G.O.Ms.No.1 for recognition of the School for grant of

permission for Classes VI to X since 2001 onwards. Vide memo

dated 20.01.2017, respondent No.1 requested respondent No.2 to take

necessary action in the matter. Respondent No.2 did not consider the

same.

x) It is further contended that the School had submitted the

nominal rolls of the SSC students, namely Mr. T. Sathvik and Ms. T.

Himamshuka by paying necessary fee and also the application for

condonation of age of Ms. T. Himamshuka. Respondent No.3 vide

proceedings dated 28.01.2017 returned the nominal rolls for want of

recognition proceedings and also issued proceedings dated 28.01.2017

returning the proposals with regard to the relaxation of age of Ms. T.

Himamshuka on the ground that the School had not submitted the said

proposals through a recognised school. Thus, the entire action of the

respondents in not granting renewal in respect of Classes I to V and

not according permission to start Classes VI to X and also returning

the Nominal Rolls of the students and not relaxing the age of Ms. T.

Himamshuka as illegal.
8
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

xi) The Students have filed the aforesaid writ petition vide

W.P.No.10202 of 2019 contending that they have studied X Class in

the subject School. The School has also filed W.P. No.6776 of 2017

seeking renewal and permission. The School had filed I.A. No.2 of

2018 in W.P. No.6776 of 2017 to allow the students to write SSC

Examinations pending disposal of the writ petition. The said IA was

allowed on 12.03.2018. Therefore, by virtue of the said interim order,

the Students have appeared in SSC Examination in the year 2018.

Results were not declared. Therefore, the School had filed I.A. Nos.5

and 6 of 2018 in W.P. No.6776 of 2017 to implead the students and to

declare the results. The School had also filed I.A. No.4 of 2018 in the

said writ petition to declare the results of the said students. Vide order

dated 01.02.2019, this Court had allowed I.A. Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2018

in W.P. No.6776 of 2017. Aggrieved by the said order, the

Department of School Education had filed appeal vide W.A. No.147

of 2019, which was disposed of by an order dated 28.02.2019.

xii) The Students have further contended that they have joined

in respondent No.4 College i.e., Saahithi Junior College, Basthi

Yellandu, Bhadradri - Kothagudem District in 2018 to pursue their
9
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Intermediate Course (MPC). They have also paid necessary fee and

examination fee in respect of First Year Intermediate. The Secretary

of Board of Intermediate and Commissioner of Intermediate

Education, respondent Nos.2 and 3 in W.P. No.10202 of 2019 had not

issued Hall-tickets and, therefore, the School had filed I.A. Nos.3, 4

and 5 of 2018 in I.A. No.2 of 2018 in W.P. No.6776 of 2017. By

virtue of the interim orders granted by this Court dated 01.02.2019,

results were declared.

xiii) It is relevant to note that the School had filed an

Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.1 of 2017 in W.P. No.6776 of

2017 seeking a direction to the respondents to receive the Nominal

Rolls of the Students and permit them to appear for the SSC Public

Examinations scheduled in March, 2017. The School had also filed

I.A. No.1 of 2018 to implead the Director, Government Examinations,

Telangana State, Hyderabad, as respondent No.5. The same was

allowed on 12.03.2018. The School had filed I.A. No.2 of 2018 to

permit the Students to appear for SSC Public Examinations scheduled

in the month of March, 2018 by receiving the Nominal Rolls. I.A.

No.4 of 2018 was filed to declare/announce the results of SSC Public

Examinations of the Students held in the month of March, 2018. I.A.
10
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

No.5 of 2018 was filed to direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to release the

SSC Public Examination results of the students. I.A. No.6 of 2018

was filed by the Students to implead themselves as the proposed

respondent Nos.6 and 7 in W.P. No.6776 of 2017 and also in I.A. No.

2 of 2018. I.A. No.3 of 2018 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 5 to

vacate the interim order granted on 12.03.2018 in I. A. No.2 of 2018

in W P No 6776 of 2017 along with counter.

xiv) On the representation submitted by the Students, vide

proceedings, dated 28.03.2019, the Government had informed that the

Students have passed examinations and qualified to appear and

continue their further studies. Examinations for the First and Second

Years for 2019 were conducted on 25.02.2019 to 13.03.2019, and the

Students were denied hall tickets. In view of the aforesaid memo,

dated 28.03.2019, the results of Intermediate First and Second Year

were released on 15.04.2019. The Students had lost the opportunity

due to the illegal action of the respondents. It is further contended by

the Students that they are legally entitled to appear for supplementary

First Year examinations to be held on 16.05.2019. They were under

the apprehension that the respondents may not issue hall tickets to
11
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

them. Therefore, they have filed the aforesaid W.P. No.10202 of 2019

seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the Students to appear

for the Supplementary Examination of Intermediate First Year 2019

commencing from 25.05.2019 onwards.

xv) The Students have filed I.A. No.1 of 2019 seeking a

direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to issue examination hall ticket to

them so as to enable them to write the Supplementary Examination of

Intermediate First Year - 2019 commencing from 25.05.2019 onwards

and treat them as regular candidates. The Students have also filed I.A.

No.1 of 2020 seeking a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue

the examination hall ticket for the Second Year Intermediate

Examination Scheduled on 04.03.2020 (Main Exam) and 15.02.2020

(4th Batch Practical Exam) to the Students and to declare the First

Year Intermediate Results of the Students.

6. CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:

Respondent No.4 had filed counter affidavit in W.P. No.6776 of

2017 contending that:
12
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

a) Permission was granted to the School to start Classes from I

to V (T/M) for the Academic Year 1998-99 vide

proceedings dated 19.02.1995;

b) The School had submitted renewal proposals dated

18.08.2010 and the same were rejected by respondent No.4

vide proceedings dated 18.08.2010 for want of Challanas

and feasibility report of the Department. However, the

School was informed to submit fresh proposals to the

Competent Authority in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated

01.01.1994 and G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 30.06.2010;

c) On 27.04.2012, the School had made an application to

respondent No.4 for grant of renewal in respect of Classes I

to V (T/M) and opening permission for Classes VI to X;

d) Vide proceedings dated 13.06.2012, instructions were given

to the Deputy Educational Officer, Khammam and the

Mandal Educational Officer, Yellandu for want of feasible

report;

e) Accordingly, the said Authorities had conducted inspection

and found that the School has insufficient infrastructure

facilities and other amenities. The School has 14 semi
13
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

pucca tailed and asbestos sheet rooms, out of 14-16 rooms

roofed with sheets and 8 rooms roofed with tails out of 8

rooms, 3 rooms completely damaged and not for using and

remaining 5 rooms using for class and 2 for office, 4 for

residential purpose. The toilet facilities and drinking water

facilities are not available;

f) The School had not submitted any proposals for renewal,

and due to non-submission of the renewal proposals for

Class I to V (T/M) and for opening permission for Classes

VI to X within the stipulated time after renewal and

recognition, respondent No.4 had rejected the appeal vide

proceedings dated 10.01.2014 in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1,

dated 01.01.1994. However, the School was advised to

submit fresh proposals for the academic year 2014-15, but it

failed to submit fresh proposals within the stipulated time;

g) In obedience of the orders passed by this Court, respondent

No.2 had permitted the SSC Students of the School to

appear for SSC examinations as private candidates for the

year 2002-03 from any Government / Recognised Schools

subject to the outcome of the writ petition;
14
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

h) Despite giving an opportunity vide proceedings dated

24.09.2013 with an intention to give one more chance, the

School failed to submit proposals for the academic year

2014-15 in terms of the applicable rules within the stipulated

time. Therefore, the proposals submitted by the School

were rejected by respondent No.4 vide proceedings dated

10.01.2014;

i) It is further contended that the School instead of submitting

fresh proposals in terms of the Rules/Regulations submitted

representations years together. As per orders dated

08.12.2003 passed by this Court, the SSC students of the

School were allowed to right public examinations through a

Government recognised schools during the year 2002-03

only. The School failed to fulfill the conditions laid down in

G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994;

j) The School had submitted Nominal Rolls of the Students

(children of the Correspondent of the School) stating that

they are the Students of the Schools;

k) Instructions were issued to Mandal Educational Officer,

Yellandu vide proceedings dated 29.12.2017 to close down
15
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

the School and file a criminal case against the Management

of the School;

l) Vide proceedings dated 08.12.2018, the Mandal Educational

Officer, Yellandu had informed respondent No.4 that the

Correspondent himself agreed to close his Institution

voluntarily and, therefore, he has not filed criminal case as

directed. Instead of closing the School, the Correspondent

approached the District Educational Officer along with the

Students for grant of permission to allow them to the SSC

Examination March, 2018. As per the Report of MEO,

Yellandu, dated 24.02.2018, a criminal case was also filed

on behalf of Department against the Management of the

School on the allegation that it is running Institution without

department permission;

m) The School is not having any recognition hence, the

Students are not entitled to write SSC Examinations. The

Students, who regularly studied in recognized School and

attended all the Formative / Summative Assessment

(FA/SAs) shall only be eligible for appearing SSC Public
16
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Examinations as per Paragraph No.3 (a) of G.O.Ms.No.2,

dated 20.08.2014;

n) The Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.17, dated

14.05.2014 for implementation of 'Continuous and

Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) for examination reforms

in the State. Accordingly, the average of four Formative

Assessments (FAs) are to be accounted for 20% of marks in

Public Examinations under each subject as mentioned on

page 3 of the said Government Orders. The School failed to

submit the average of four Formative Assessments of the

Students. The School did not maintain the Internal marks as

per the procedure. The average of FAs/SA and subject wise

average of internal marks are to be recorded separately. The

students did not attend the school regularly and not appeared

for the internal exams, conducted by the school and hence

they are not at all bona fide students of the school;

o) The students are not regular students and, therefore, they

were not issued hall tickets. The Students are not eligible to

appear SSC Public Examinations since they did not have
17
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

required eligibility criteria as referred to in the aforesaid

G.O.Ms.No.17;

p) The Correspondent of the School had violated the Rules and

sent the Manuscript Nominal Rolls along with Fee Challans.

Since the Students have not fulfilled the eligibility criteria as

per the report of respondent No.4, the Correspondent of the

School is liable for punishment for violation the Education

Act, 1982 and subsequent Government Orders issued.

With the aforesaid submissions, respondent No.4 sought to dismiss the

aforesaid writ petitions.

7. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:

i) Vide G.O.Ms.No.1 of Education (P.S.2), dated 01.01.1994,

the Government had framed Rules called the Andhra Pradesh

Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration

and Control of Schools under Private Management) Rules, 1993

(hereinafter recalled as 'the Rules'). After formation of Telangana,

respondent No.1, had adopted the said Rules in terms of the provisions

of the A.P. Re-organization Act, 2014. Certain Rules are relevant to

decide the present writ petitions and the same are extracted below:
18
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

"1. Competent Authorities:

For the purpose of these rules, the following shall be the competent authority.

Category of Schools Competent Authority

(1) (2)

(1) (a) Pre-Primary,
Primary and UpperPrimary Schools District Educational Officer

(b) Oriental Schools, Hindi Patasalas,
Hindi Vidyalayas, Sanskrit Patasalas
and Special Schools.

(2) Secondary Schools. Regional Joint Director of School Education

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Criteria for Establishment of Schools:

(1) Permission for establishment of new school or up gradation of
existing school, may be accorded keeping in view of the educational
needs of the localities taking into consideration the population of
the school going children in the locality.
Explanation: For the purpose of this rule, the locality shall be as follows.

(i) For pre-primary/primary schools, the village or an area having
population of 200 and above and a radius if 1 K.M. from the proposed
location.

(ii) For Upper-Primary School, the village or an area having
population of 200 above and a radius of 2 K.Ms from such village /
habitation. In Urban areas, it shall be 2 K.Ms. from the proposed
location.

(iii) For High School, the village or an area having population of 200
above and a radius of 5 K.Ms from such village /area. In Urban areas,
it shall be 5 K.Ms. from the proposed location.

(2) In respect of application from minority educational institutional,
the same minority educational institutional the same shall be
considered from the view point of minorities and not with standing the
lack of need on a general basis.

"5: Requirements for Establishing of a New School or Up-gradation of
the Existing School:-
Every educational agency desirous of opening a school or upgrading
the existing school shall -
19
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

(1) deposit by way of national saving certificate or Kisan Vikas Patra
and pledge with the District Educational Officer
concerned towards endowment fund as follows:-
(i) Pre-primary School, Primary School, Upper Primary
School, Oriental School, Hindi Patasalas, Sanskrit
Patasalas, Hindi Vidyalayas, Special Schools .. Rs.25,000/-
(i) Secondary Schools .. Rs.50,000/-

This Endowment Fund may be utilized after obtaining prior
permission of the competent authority for the purpose of purchase of
furniture, material and equipment required for the school;
(2) have a provision of adequate accommodation for the smooth
conduct of classes. This shall be approximately 6-8 Sq.ft. per
pupil, and the area shall be calculated section wise;
(3) have adequate accommodation for staff in respect of upper
primary schools and high schools;
(4) have adequate accommodation for laboratory, library and
Computer room in respect of high schools;
(5) have separate and adequate sanitary facilities, for students and
staff and for men and women;
(6) provide adequate safe drinking water facilities to the students and
staff
(7) (i)The Primary/Upper Primary/Secondary Schools in rural
areas
/Urban areas (Municipal Corporation and Municipal limits) shall
have a play ground facility of 2000 Sq. m. and 1000 Sq. m
respectively annexed to the school.
(ii) The schools proposed to be established in urban areas,
where the play area mentioned in clause ( i ) is not available in the
premises, shall provide play area annexure to the school as follows:
Primary school Upper primary &
School Secondary schools
Enrolment Provide Minimum Provide
range open space Minimumopen
for play area space
for play area
Upto 200 500 sq,mts 700 sq.mts
201‐300 600 sq,mts 800 sq.mts
301‐400 800 sq.mts 1000 sqmts
401‐500 1000 sq,mts 1200 sq.mts.
501‐600 1200 sq.mts 1400 sq,mts
601‐700 1400 sq,mts 1600 sq,mts
701‐800 1600 sq,mts 1800 sq,mts
801‐900 1800 Sq.mts 2000 sq.mts
901‐1000 2000 sq.mts 2200 sq.mts
20
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Indoor sports halls - area as mentioned below:
PrimarySchool Multi GYM (withmats) 6 meters x 15meters 90 sq . m

Upper a) Multi 6m x 15 m 90 Sq. m
Primary / GYM 13.5 m x 6.1 m x
Secondary ShuttleCourts 2 nos 165 Sq. m
Schools Aerobics /Yoga 6 m x 15m 90 Sq. m
---------------345 Sq.m
Total Rounded to350 Sq.m

iii) In Municipal Corporation Cities where the cost of land is very
high and providing outdoor play area as specified above is not
practicable, the school authorities shall, as an alternative, make
the following minimum arrangements:

a.) Provide tie up facility for the school children to play in a nearby
municipal ground/park under supervision of Teachers;
OR
b) Tie up with another nearby school or any other
institution (that has open playground) for their school children
to play in the other school/ institution play ground, under
supervision of Teachers;
OR
c). Provide reasonable/ adequate indoor space to play
indoor games including shuttle-Badminton, table tennis,
carroms, etc, which shall be adequate for at least two sections'
children (i.e.80).

(7) provide grills to the balconies in case of high rise buildings;

(8) provide suggestion boxes in prominent places in the school premises;

(9) compulsorily provide fire extinguishers and fire fighting equipment
as prescribed in the National Building Code of India part IV fire
Protection, 1997 and approved by Fire Service Department of the
State;

(10) maintain first aid kits in sufficient numbers in the school premises;

(11) follow the rules and regulations prescribed in Cir. Memo.
No.21748/D1/97, dt.16-2-1998 and other orders of
Transport Authority regarding parking of school vehicles
/maintenance of vehicles and ensure safety of children, and shall
21
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

obtain fitness of the school vehicles from the Transport
Authorities as prescribed by the Government from time to
time;

(12) the cost of providing zebra crossings at the roads crossing near
the schools, which are located in Municipal Corporation/Towns
shall be met by the School Managements;

(13) have adequate personnel to guide the movement of the children
to ensure road safety and transportation;

(14) produce sanitary certificate from the authorities concerned;

(15) produce structural soundness certificate of the school building/
premises and produce occupancy certificate from the authorities
concerned.

(16) school or up gradation of existing school shall produce No
Objection Certificate from the Police Department (traffic) and
as well as concerned Municipal Corporation or the Municipality
in respect of all Municipalities / Municipal Corporation Areas.
In respect of villages the no objection certificate shall be
obtained from the local Gram Panchayat and no objection
certificate from Police is not necessary.

(a) All the school buildings that have more than one floor (i.e. more than
ground floor), shall immediately confirm to the standards of National
Building Code for Educational Institutions, and Indian Standards Code
IS:8827.1978 in respect of the following items:
(i) Corridors;
(ii) Staircases, their width and rise, and their
number per given area of floor space;
(iii) Parapets;
(iv) Exits, their number and specifications;
(v) Ramps;
(vi) Circulation Areas;
(vii) Fire Protection norms.

(b) All open corridors (with only one set of classrooms on one side,and the
other side being open) shall be of a minimum of 2.0 meters clear width,
and also comply with other stipulations of
the building codes as stated above
(c) No open corridors or staircases in any school shall be constructed on a
cantilever design; all open corridors and staircases shall be constructed
with supporting RCC columnson all sides, from ground floor level
upwards;
22
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

(d) All parapet walls of open corridors (including those on the corridors
and staircases) shall be of RCC / RCM facia construction (3 inches
thick) and be of a minimum height of
1.2 meters (4 feet), with vertical reinforcement steel bars fromthe slab
being taken in extension into the parapet, and with
horizontal reinforcement steel bars being adequately placed, and linked to
the RCC columns to either side

(e) All closed corridors (with rows of classes being placed on eitherside of the
corridor) shall be of a minimum of 2.5 meters width.

(f) All staircases shall be of a minimum of 1.5 meters flight-width;and each
stair's raise and tread shall be 15 cm and 30 cm respectively; there shall
be a landing after every 12 steps in the staircase;

(g) There shall be one set of staircases for every 30 meters length (or part
thereof) of corridor; (e.g., two staircases for more than 30 and up to 60
meters length of corridor; three staircases for more than 60 and up to 90
meters length of corridor;

(h) There shall be no exit doors to any rooms that open directly tothe stairs;

(i) No High-tension electricity lines shall pass within the distance as
mentioned in the Code as described above; and shall be at least 2.0
meters away from any side of the school; and no such
high-tension lines shall pass over the school buildings;
(j) All buildings with more than ground floor, shall satisfy fire- safety
norms, and obtain certificate from the Fire department
thereof.

(17) any Educational agency intending to seek permission for
opening of new school or up gradation of existing school shall
produce No Objection Certificate from the Police Department
(traffic) and as well as concerned Municipal Corporation or the
Municipality in respect of all Municipalities / Municipal
Corporation Areas. In respect of villages the no objection
certificate shall be obtained from the local Gram Panchayat and
no objection certificate from Police is not necessary
6. Application for permission for Establishment of New Schools
orUp-gradation of Existing Schools.

(1) The application seeking permission for establishment of a new
school or up gradation of the existing school shall be submitted to
the competent authority on or before the 31st October of the
proceeding academic year, in triplicate, in form I.
Provided that the said period may be extended with late fee as
prescribed as follows:
23
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Sl. Date of submission of application Late Fee
No
.
1 Before 30th November of preceding academic year Rs.10,000/-
2 Before 31st December of preceding academic year Rs.20,000/
3 Before 31st January of preceding academic year Rs.30,000/
4 Before 28/29th February of preceding academic year Rs.40,000/
5 Before 31st March of preceding academic year Rs.50,000/
6 Before 3oth April of preceding academic year Rs.60,000/

(2) Every application shall be accompanied by the following
documents.

(a) A copy of the constitution and byelaws of the educational
agency registered with the respective registration authorities
together with the list of a office bearers.

(b) Evidence in support of payment of the following application
feeto the concerned Head of account.

Category of School Application fee

(i) Pre-Primary, primary
Schools And Upper
primary Schools
Oriental Schools (all
classes
In all languages) Rs.1,000/-
Hindi patasalas (all
Classes)
Hindi Vidyalayas (all
Classes) Sanskrit
patasalas,
Special School.

(ii) Secondary Schools (HighSchools). Rs.2,000/-

(c) Deposit by way of National Savings Certificate or Kishan Vikas
Patras and pledge with the District Education Officer
concerned towards Endowment fund s prescribed in rule 5
(1).
(d) A sketch plan of the site indicating the proposed location of
the schools.
(e) A plan of to the building to evidence that the requirements
indicated in rule 5 are satisfied.
(f) Evidence of ownership of the land and building or lease of
landor building as the case may be.
24
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

7. Scrutiny and Grant of Permission:

(1) On receipt of an application the competent authority shall cause
such verification of the proposal as is necessary and shall
communicate the decision there of by the 31st January. In case of
refusal of permission the order shall contain reasons.

(2) The grant of permission shall be in Form II.

8. Validity of permission:
(1) Permission granted or deemed to have been granted under rule 7
by the competent authority is valid only up to the end of July of
every year. It shall be incumbent upon the educational agency to
apply, in the manner prescribed under these rules for recognition.
Failure to do so will result in the permission being automatically
lapsed. The burden of proof of having applied for recognition
shall lie with the educational agency.

(2) Permission for schools other than Secondary Schools shall be
valid for all the Classes. In respect of Secondary Schools, however,
the permission granted shall be only up to class VIII. The
educational agency shall be permitted to open classes IX and X
only after obtaining due recognition and only from second and third
year respectively after the commencement of class VIII. For
example if class VIII is commenced in the academic year 1994
- 95, the class IX can be commenced in the next year and class
X in the year 1996- 97.
Provided that the Government may accord permission to an
educational institution for opening of classes I to X or VIII to X
at a time.
Grant of permission does not confer any right of recognition to the
educational institutional.

9. Recognition:
(1) Application for recognition in Form III shall be submitted by the
educational agency to the competent authority before the 31st
July of the year in which the permission has been granted or deemed
to have been granted under rule 7.
(2) The application among other things shall be accompanied by.

(a) Documentary evidence regarding the purchase of library
books, laboratory equipment sports material, furniture etc.

(b) Evidence of appointment of qualified staff as per staff
pattern prescribed by competent authority from time to time.

prescribed in rule 5.
(3) On receipt of application the competent authority shall make or
cause verification as is necessary and shall communicate a
decision within three months. In case of refusal the order shall
indicate the reasons.

(4) Grant of recognition shall be in Form - IV.

(5) Recognition shall be valid for period of ten academic years.
The educational agency shall, before expiry of recognition seek
renewal of recognition. However by the end of April every year, the
educational agency shall file an affidavit to the effect that 'there
is no deviation or violation of norms/rules prescribed by the
Government from time to time'

(6) The renewal of recognition shall be guided by the same
principles as are applicable to grant of original recognition. The
fee for the renewal shall be Rs.5,000/- in respect of Secondary
Schools and Rs.2,500/- in respect of all other schools.

10. XXXXX

11. Withdrawal of permission and /or Recognition.

Permission and/or Recognition, granted under these rules is liable for
withdrawal by the competent authority for violation of these rules.

Provided that the educational agency shall be given and
opportunity of making representation on the proposed action by
competent authority.

12. XXXXX
13. XXXXX

14. Admission of children to the schools:

(1) No school shall admit child to Class-I unless he/she has completed
5 years of age on the first day of academic year as defined in
Section 16 of the Act. Correspondingly, children shall not be
admitted into any higher classes unless they have completed 4 +
n years of age as on the first day of the Academic year 'n' being
the class to which admission is sought;

(2) No school shall admit a child directly into 6th class unless he/she
has:-

(a) Successfully completed V class from a recognized school; or
(b) Successfully completed phase-I of Non-Formal Education; or
26
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

(c) Successfully completed Class V or equivalent through
open school system; or
(d) Has passed 6th class entrance examination conducted by
the District Educational Officer.

(3) No school shall admit child into VIII class unless a child has;

(a) Successfully completed VII class from a recognized
school conducted by the District Educational Officer; or
(b) Completed successfully phase-II of Non-Formal Education; or
(c) Successfully completed VII class through open school system.

(4) No school shall admit child into class IX and X class unless a
child has:

(a) Successfully completed class 8th and 9th respectively from a
recognized school; or

(b) Has successfully passed common examination conducted for
VIII and IX Classes respectively by the District Educational
Officer.
15. XXXXX
16. XXXXX
17. XXXXX
18. XXXXX
19. XXXXX
20. Submission of Annual Administration Report by the
Educational Agency:
The Educational agency shall submit the annual
administration report in the prescribed proforma to the
competent authority for very financial year by the 30th
September at the latest. Such report shall be supported by the
audited statement of accounts of the school duly audited by
Chartered Accountant. Separate accounts shall be maintained
for each school.

Similarly the educational agency, which is running more
than one school shall also submit such returns within the
stipulated time to the competent authority.

21. Powers to Relax Rules:
The Government may relax any of the provisions in these
rules involving any undue hardship to any educational agency
or in public interest."
27
KL,J
W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

ii) Vide G.O.No.41 of Education (SE.PS.I) Department, dated

11.05.2006, the Government had issued certain amendments to the

aforesaid Rules, and they are extracted below.

"GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
ABSTRACT

School Education Department Certain amendments to Andhra Pradesh Educational
Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control and of School under
private managements) Rules, 1993-Orders - Issued.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION (SP.PS.1) DEPARTMENT
G.O.No.41, Education (SE.Ps.1) Department, dated: 11-5-2006.
ORDER:

The following notification shall be published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette.

NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by section 99 read with section 20 of Andhra Pradesh education Act. 1982 (Andhra Pradesh Act.No.1 of 1982) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby makes the following amendments to the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of school under private managements) Rules, 1993 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1, Education (PS.2) Department, dated: 1-1-1994 as subsequently amended.

AMENDMENTS

For rule 5 of the said rules the following rule shall be substituted, namely. "5: Requirements for Establishment of a New Schools or Up-gradation of the Existing School:

Every educational agency desirous of opening a school or up gradation the existing school shall.

(1) Deposit by way of national saving certificate or Kisan Vikas Patra and pledge with the District Educational Officer concerned towards endowment fund as follows: (1) Pre-Primary School, Primary School, Upper Primary School, Oriental School, Hindi Patasalas, Sanskrit Patasalas, Hindi Vidyalayas, Special Schools Rs.25,000/-

(1) Secondary Schools Rs.50,000/

This Endowment Fund may be utilized after obtaining prior permission of the competent authority for the purpose of purchase of furniture, material and equipment required for the school.

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

(2) Have a provision of adequate accommodation for the smooth conduct of Classes. This shall be approximately 6-8 Sq.ft.per Pupil, and the area shall be calculated section wise.

(3) Have adequate accommodation for staff in respect of upper Primary schools and high schools.

(4) Have adequate accommodation for laboratory, library and Computer room in respect of High Schools.

(5) Have separate and adequate sanitary facilities, for students and staff and for men and women (6) Provide adequate safe drinking water facilities to the students and staff. (7) Have play ground facilities annexed to the school. This shall be a minimum of 1600 Sq.m. in respect of the Municipal Corporation limits and Municipality limits, 2000 Sqm. in Non-Municipal and Non-Municipal Corporation Areas (8) Provide grills to the balconies in case of high rise buildings

(9) Provide suggestion boxes in prominent places in the school premises.

(10) Compulsorily provide fire extinguishers and fire fighting equipment as prescribed in the National Building Code of India part IV fire protection, 1997 and approved by Fire Service Department of the State

11) Maintain first aid kits in sufficient numbers in the school premises (12) Follow the rules and regulations prescribed in Cat Memo No 21741/D1/97, &: 16-2- 1998 and other orders of Transport Authority regarding parking of school vehicles/maintenance of vehicles and ensure safety of children, and shall obtain fitness of the school vehicles from the Transport Authority as prescribed by the Government from time to time.

(13) The cost of providing zebra crossings at the roads crossing near the schools, which are located in Municipal Corporation/Town, shall be met by the School Managements. (14) Have adequate personnel to guide the movement of the children to ensure road safety and transportation.

(15) Produce sanitary certificate from authority concerned.

(16) Produce structural soundness certificate of the school building/premises and produce occupancy certificate from the authority concerned. (17) Any Educational agency intending to seek permission for opening of new school or up gradation of existing school shall produce No Objection Certificate from the Police Department (traffic) and as well as concerned Municipal Corporation Areas. In respect of villages the no objection certificate shall be obtained from the local Gram Panchayat and no objection certificate from Police is not necessary. (BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

P.KRISHNAIAH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

iii) Vide G.O.Ms.No.794, Edn., dated 03.08.1977, the

Government had issued amendments to subsidiary Rule 15 of the SSC

Scheme approved in the G.O.Ms.No.63, Edn., dated 16.01.1969. The

said amendments are relevant and the same are extracted below:

"GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ABSTRACT

X CLASS PUBLIC EXAMINATIONS under the Integrated Curriculation from March, 1969 Scheme approved - Amendment in the scheme-Orders-Issued.

EDUCATION (K) DEPARTMENT

G.O.Ms.No.794, Edn. Dated the 3rd August, 1977 Read:

1. G.O.Ms.No.63, Edn., dated 16.1.1969.

2. G.O.Ms.No.1781, Edn., dated 27.11.1971.

3. Govt. Memo No.1850/F2/71, Edn., dt:5.4.72.

4. From the Commissioner for Government Examinations, Lr.No.5/D1-1/68, dated 29.9.1976.

***** O R D E R:-

Government approve the proposals of Commissioner for Government Examinations and issue the following amendments to subsidiary Rule 15 of the SSC Scheme approved in the G.O. first read above:

AMENDMENT

Delete items (i), (ii) and (iii) under subsidiary Rule 15 of the SSC Scheme and substitute the following:

i) Each pupil of X Class (Regular and Supplementary) should necessarily attend the School for not less than 75% of the number of working days, in a school year.

ii) No condonation of shortage in attendance will granted by any authority in respect of X Class pupils, except as mentioned in Sub-para (iii) below:

iii) The District Educational Officer of the District is however, authorized to grant condonation of shortage in attendance, in exceptional conditions and

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

circumstances, by relaxing the Rules of attendance and such a condonation shall not exceed 5% (i.e. upto 70%). The Director of School Education is also similarly empowered to condone shortage of attendance upto a further extent of 5% (i.e., 65%). If there are any exceptional cases which require condonation beyond 10% they shall be referred iv) to Government.

iv) The Heads of Institutions shall calculate the attendance of the X Class regular candidates as well as supplementary candidates as on the day of preparing the nominal rolls, assuming that all the pupils will attend the school, on all the remaini working days, during that particular school year i.e., upto 15th March.

v) If there are any pupils who do not satisfy 75% of minimum attendance, in respect X Class even after assuring that they would attend the school on all the remaining working days during that particular school year, i.e., upto 15th March, the names such pupils should not be included in the nominal rolls unless the shortage in attendance in respect of such pupils is condoned by the competent authority as contemplated in sub-rule (iii) of subsidiary Rule 15 supra.

vi) The number of working days for the institution should be calculated from the date of re-opening of the institution after summer vacation for the school year upto 15th March.

(BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)

C. SRINIVASA SASTRY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT"

iv) Vide G.O.Ms.No.2 of School Education (Prog.II)

Department, dated 26.08.2014, respondent No.1 had issued certain

clarifications and amendments to G.O.Ms.No.17, dated 14.05.2014.

v) Vide G.O.Ms.No.17, School Education (PE-Programm-II)

Department, dated 14.05.2014, respondent No.1 had issued orders for

implementation of examination reforms in respect of Class IX and X

from the academic year 2014-15. Vide G.O.Ms.No.2, dated

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

26.08.2014, certain amendments were brought to the said G.O. The

relevant amendments are extracted below.

"2. In the reference 2nd read above, the Commissioner & Director of School Education, Telangana has submitted proposals for considering certain clarifications and amendments to the G.O. 1" read above and SSC examinations pattern as follows.

a) Under rule 2e - Qualifying marks in internals and in each paper in summative examinations for non language subjects. Prescribing pass marks in the internal examinations and in each paper of non language subjects shall be dispensed with. However, 35% is the pass marks for all the subjects. The candidates must qualify in the written examination and at least attain 28 marks out of 80 marks for theory paper to pass in every subject."

b) xxxx

c) xxxx

d) xxxx

e) xxxx

3) The C&DSE has further submitted the following proposals:

a) Facility of appearing the SSC exam without school study. The existing facility of students appearing for SSC public examinations without regular school study needs to be dispensed with. Such students may appear for class X through other alternative systems like National or State open school systems and encourage students at school stage for regular schooling rather than appearing exams without school study."

Therefore, to start a school, to obtain renewal and to obtain permission

for Up-gradation, school has to necessarily follow the aforesaid Rules

and the procedure prescribed thereunder.

vi) As stated above, the competent authority had issued

proceedings dated 19.02.1995 to the School to start Classes I to V

(T/M) for the academic year 1994-95 to 1998-99. Thereafter, the

School had submitted renewal proposal dated 18.08.2010 and the

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

same were rejected by the competent authority i.e., the District

Educational Officer, Khammam vide proceedings dated 18.08.2010,

for want of challanas and feasibility report of the Department.

However, the Competent Authority had requested the School to

submit fresh proposals in terms of G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994

and G.O.Ms.No.361, dated 30.06.2010. The School had made an

application dated 27.04.2012 to the District Educational Officer,

Khammam, for grant of renewal and recognition for Class I to V

(T/M) and permission to start Class VI to X (E/M & T/M). A

feasibility report was called for. In view of the same, the Deputy

Educational Officer and Mandal Educational Officer concerned have

visited the School and they found the aforesaid lapses/deficiencies.

According to them, the School is not having sufficient infrastructural

facilities and other amenities. Therefore, the authorities have informed

the petitioner to submit proposals in terms of the aforesaid G.Os. for

renewal of Class I to V (T/M) and permission to start Class VI to X

(T/M) within the stipulated time. The School failed to submit the said

proposals within the stipulated timelines.

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

vii) In view of the orders issued by respondent No.2,

respondent No.4 had requested the School to submit fresh proposals

seeking permission to Class I to X at a stretch for the academic year

2014-15 duly following the conditions, remittance of application fee,

applicable rules to respondent No.4 by 31.10.2013. The School failed

to submit the said proposals. On the other hand, it had filed a writ

petition vide W.P. No.3476 of 2003 and this Court vide order dated

08.12.2003 disposed of the said writ petition directing the respondents

therein, particularly the competent authority i.e., the District

Educational Officer, Khammam, to consider the request of the School

for grant of recognition for running Classes VI to X and pass

appropriate orders within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of the order. However, it was made clear that it is

open to the School to file an additional representation, by bringing to

the notice of the said competent authority regarding the fulfillment of

the required norms in support of the relief for recognition classes from

VI to X. The School had not submitted the said proposals and also

additional representation to the competent authority stating that it has

fulfilled the required norms. However, respondent No.4 vide

proceedings dated 10.01.2014, rejected the request of the School for

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

renewal of Classes I to V (E/M) and permission to start Classes VI to

X on the ground that the School failed to meet the necessary

requirements in terms of the aforesaid G.Os and it is not feasible for

consideration. Respondent No.4 had instructed the School to submit

fresh proposals as per the checklist communicated to the

Correspondent of the School on 05.10.2013 by following the

Government Orders as on date while fulfilling the required norms

since as on date, the School failed to submit the proposals as per

norms, instead it had submitted representation through letter pads

only. The said proceedings are under challenge in W.P. No.6776 of

2017.

viii) The aforesaid facts would reveal that the School is not

having recognition, hence the Students are not entitled to write

examinations. Students, who studied regularly in recognized School

and attended all the Formative/Summative Assessments, shall only be

eligible for appearing SSC Public Examinations as per Paragraph No.3

(a) of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated 20.08.2014. The School also failed to

submit the average of four Formative Assessments of the Students in

terms of G.O.Ms. No.17, dated 14.05.2014. The average of FAs/SA

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

and subject wise average of internal marks are to be recorded

separately. The said procedure was not followed by the School in

respect of the Students.

ix) The students who studied in registered school regularly only

are eligible for appearing SSC Public Exams. The students who

appeared Formative Assessments (Internal Exams) only are eligible

for appearing SSC Public Examinations in terms of G.O.ms.No.17,

dated 14.05.2014. The Students in the present writ petition are not

having the aforesaid eligibility criteria to appear SSC Examinations.

The said facts are not in dispute.

x) It is relevant to note that in paragraph No.5 of the writ

affidavit, the School has stated as under:

"5. I respectfully submit that inspite of receipt of the said order dated: 8.12.2003, the District Educational Officer, Khammam has deliberately failed to comply with the said order in spite of further representations and requests made by me. I submit that expecting permission from the District Educational Officer, Khammam, the petitioner started classes VI to X and admitted students for the said classes. I submit that several batches of class X students have completed their studies and appeared for the SSC Public Examinations through different schools and by way of

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Private Candidates. I submit that the District Educational Officer, Khammam has slept over the applications submitted by the petitioner for renewal of recognition for classes I to V and permission for classes VI to X since more than 15 years."

Thus, the Correspondent of the School himself admitted that expecting

permissions from the District Educational Officer,

Khammam/Competent Authority, he has started Classes VI to X and

admitted the students for the said classes. Several batches of Class X

students have completed their studies and appeared for SSC Public

Examinations through different schools and by way of private

candidates. The said contention of the School is illegal and contrary

to the procedure laid down under the aforesaid Rules vide the

aforesaid GOs. Expecting permission from the competent authority,

the School cannot admit the students and cannot run classes. It has to

wait for the permission. Without obtaining permission, it cannot

admit the students.

xi) It is also not in dispute that the School failed to submit fresh

proposals despite advice given by the competent authority. Though

respondent No.4 competent authority rejected the request of the school

vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014, it had filed the writ petition only

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

on 23.02.2017. Now, the School is claiming that after much

persuasion, recently respondent No.4 had furnished the proceedings

dated 10.01.2014. It had not received the checklist dated 05.10.2013.

However, the School did not state on which date it had received the

proceedings dated 10.01.2014.

xii) EARLIER ORDERS PASSED BY THIS COURT:

(a) Vide order dated 12.03.2018 in I.A. No.2 of 2018 in W.P.

No.6776 of 2017, this Court granted interim direction as

prayed for. However, the same shall be subject to the

outcome of the writ petition i.e., direction to the

respondents to receive the nominal rolls of the Students

forwarded by the School and permit them to appear for

SSC Public Examinations scheduled in the month of

March, 2018. The said order was passed considering the

submissions made by the School that the proposals

submitted by the School are pending before the

respondents. The status in the Online is placed on record

by the learned counsel for the School.

(b) Vide order dated 01.02.2019, this Court allowed I.A.

No.6 of 2019 impleading the Students as respondent

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Nos.6 and 7. In respect of I.A. Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2018,

this Court passed the following order:

"Therefore, respondent-Board is directed to announce the results for the limited purpose of showing whether these students have passed all or any of the papers and in the event those students have not passed any or all the papers, permit them to submit applications along with requisite examination fee to writ examinations in March, 2019. If students have passed all the papers, merely because result is directed to be announced, no right would accrue to seek for issuance of pass certificates until further orders. If students have failed in any of the examinations, they may be permitted to write the examinations. The respondent-Board shall take into consideration the internal marks if they were already furnished.

Accordingly, I.As are ordered."

The said order was passed considering the order dated 12.03.2018 in

I.A. No.2 of 2018.

authorities have filed a writ appeal vide W.A. No.147 of

2019, and the Division Bench had disposed of the said

writ appeal on 28.02.2019 with the following order:

"6. We see that the direction for permission to write examination and for further examination in

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

case of failure cannot be carried forward from time to time unless the Court takes a final call on the eligibility of the writ petitioner to relief. Therefore, it is appropriate to permit the impugned order to continue for the time being, however, with a request to the learned Single Judge to expedite the consideration of the main issue between the writ petitioner-school and the Government on the question of recognition. This will enable determination of issues as to eligibility of the students to go for the examinations hereinafter."

(d) Vide order dated 08.05.2019 in W.P. No.10202 of 2019,

this Court directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 therein to issue

examination hall tickets to the Students to enable them to

write the supplementary examination of the Intermediate

First Year 2019 scheduled to commence on 25.05.2019.

However, their results shall not be declared without the

permission of the Court.

(e) Vide order dated 13.02.2020, this Court passed the

following order:

"The learned Standing Counsel for Board of Intermediate Education on instructions submits that hall tickets are being generated and would be forwarded to the 4th respondent-college and the

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

petitioners can approach the 4th respondent College tomorrow to collect their hall tickets, if they are otherwise eligible."

(f) Now, the Students have field I.A. No.1 of 2020 in W.P.

No.10202 of 2019 seeking a direction to respondent

Nos.2 and 3 therein to issue the examination hall tickets

for the Second Year Intermediate examination scheduled

on 04.03.2020 (Main Exam) and 15.02.2020 (4th Batch

Practical Exam) to the Students and a consequential

direction to them to declare the First Year Intermediate

results of the Students.

xiii) The above said facts would reveal that admittedly, the

School has no permission to start Classes VI to X. Its application was

rejected vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014 by the competent

authority. The said proceedings are under challenge in W.P.No.6776

of 2017. During pendency of the said writ petition, expecting

permission from the competent authority i.e., the District Educational

Officer, Khammam, the School had started Classes from VI to X and

admitted the Students for the said Classes. The said action of School

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

is illegal and in violation of the principle laid down in the aforesaid

Rules, G.O.Ms.No.1, dated 01.01.1994 and the subsequent G.Os.

xiv) By virtue of the aforesaid interim orders granted by this

Court from time to time, the respondent authorities have issued hall-

tickets and permitted the students to appear in the examinations.

Results were also declared. It is relevant to note that the aforesaid

orders including the Division Bench order are subject to the result of

W.P. No.6776 of 2017. In the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2019, the

Division Bench of this Court has also observed that it is only by way

of interim order on equities. The same is subject to the adjudication of

the main issue involved in the writ petition. Thus, the aforesaid orders

are subject to the result of W.P.

xv) In view of the aforesaid facts, the question that falls for

consideration is "whether to decide the aforesaid writ petitions, on

equities considering interest and future of the Students or to decide the

writ petitions strictly in accordance with law, rules and law laid down

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?"

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

a) In Regional Officer, SBSE v. Sheena Pethambaran1, the

Apex Court held as under:

"6. This Court has on several occasions earner deprecated the practice of permitting the students to pursue their studies and to appear in the examination under the interim orders passed in the petitions. In most of such cases it is ultimately pleaded that since the course was over or the result had been declared, the matter deserves to be considered sympathetically. It results in very awkward and difficult situations. Rules stare straight into the face of the plea of sympathy and concessions, against the legal provisions."

b) In C.B.S.E. v. P. Sunil Kumar2, the Apex Court held that

the institutions whose students were permitted to undertake the

examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education were not

entitled to appear in the examination. They were, however, allowed to

appear in the examination under the interim orders granted by the

High Court. In paragraph No.4, it was held as under:

"4. ....But to permit students of an unaffiliated institution to appear at the examination conducted by the Board under orders of the Court and then to compel the Board to issue certificates in favour of those who have undertaken examination would tantamount to subversion of law and

. (2003) 7 SCC 719

. (1998) 5 SCC 377

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

this Court will not be justified to sustain the orders issued by the High Court on misplaced sympathy in favour of the students."

c) In Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr. Bansal3

the Apex Court held as under:

"7. ...We are afraid that this kind of administration of interlocutory remedies, more guided by sympathy quite often wholly misplaced, does no service to anyone. From the series of orders that keep coming before us in academic matters, we find that loose, ill-conceived sympathy masquerades as interlocutory justice exposing judicial discretion to the criticism of degenerating into private benevolence. This is subversive of academic discipline, or whatever is left of it, leading to serious impasse in academic life. Admissions cannot be ordered without regard to the eligibility of the candidates ... The courts should not embarrass academic authorities by themselves taking over their functions."

d) In A.R Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt.

of A.P.4 the Apex Court held as under:

"10. ...We cannot by our fiat direct the University to disobey the statute to which it owes its existence and the regulations made by the University itself. We cannot

. (1993) 4 SCC, 401

. (1986) 2 SCC 667

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

imagine anything more destructive of the rule of law than a direction by the court to disobey the laws."

e) In State of Tamil Nadu v. St. Joseph Teacher's Training

Institute5 the Apex Court held that the direction of admitting the

students of unauthorized educational institutions and permitting them

to appear at the examination has been looked on with disfavour and

the students of unrecognised institutions who are not legally entitled to

appear at the examination conducted by the Educational Department

of the Government cannot be allowed to sit at the examination and the

High Court committed an error in granting permission to such students

to appear at the public examination.

f) In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil

Gulati6, the Apex Court held that deprecated the practice followed by

the High Court to issue direction and also observed that such

aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future.

g) In Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow7, the

Apex Court held as under:

. (1991) 3 SCC 87

. (1998) 3 SCC 5

. (1984) 1 SCC 307

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

"3. Whenever a writ petition is filed provisional admission should not be given as a matter of course on the petition being admitted unless the court is fully satisfied that the petitioner has a cast-iron case which is bound to succeed or the error is so gross or apparent that no other conclusion is possible."

h) In State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale8,

the Apex Court held that the students of unrecognized and

unauthorized educational institutions could not have been permitted

by the High Court on a writ Petition being filed to appear in the

examination and to be accommodated in recognized institutions. It

was observed as under;

"12. ...Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education."

i) Referring to aforesaid judgments, the Apex Court in Sunil

Oraon (Minor) through Guardian v. CBSE9, held as under:

"23. Time and again, therefore, this Court had deprecated the practice of educational institution admitting the students without requisite recognition or affiliation. In all such cases

. (1992) 4 SCC 435

. (2006) 13 SCC 673

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

the usual plea is the career of innocent children who have fallen in the hands of the mischievous designated school authorities. As the factual scenario delineated against goes to show the school has shown scant regards to the requirements for affiliation and as rightly highlighted by learned counsel for the CBSE, the infraction was of very serious nature. Though the ultimate victims are innocent students that cannot be a ground for granting relief to the appellant. Even after filing the undertakings the School non-challantly continued the violations.

24. Students have suffered because of the objectionable conduct of the school. It shall be open to them to seek such remedy against School as is available in law, about which aspect we express no opinion."

j) The sum and substance of the aforesaid judgments is that

Institutions shall not admit the students without proper recognition or

affiliation. The High Court shall not pass any interim orders directing

the Authorities to permit the Students to appear in the exams without

proper recognition or affiliation.

xvi) In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court

and also the aforesaid discussion, considering the fact that the School

has no permission to start Classes VI to X and it is not having

permission to up-grade itself. Therefore, the Students are not entitled

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

to appear for SSC Examinations. Students, who regularly study in

recognised School, attend all the Formative/Summative Assessment

(FA/SAs) shall only be eligible for appearing SSC Public

Examinations as per Paragraph No.3 (a) of G.O.Ms.No.2, dated

20.08.2014. The School has to submit average of four Formative

Assessments of the Students, which the School did not do so. The

School did not maintain the Internal marks as per the procedure. The

School has to record average of FAs/SA and subject wise average of

internal marks separately. The students are lacking the entire

eligibility criteria. They were appeared in the SSC Examinations,

their results were declared in compliance of the interim orders passed

by this Court. Pursuant to the same, the Students took admission into

Intermediate Course in Saahithi Junior College, Yellandu. Whether

they have informed about the pendency of the present writ petitions to

the said College is a question of fact. Whether the said College has

admitted the Students on verifying the entire documents including

their 10th Class results, marks memo etc. and also considering the

interim orders granted by this Court and pendency of these writ

petitions is also again a question of fact.

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

xvii) As discussed supra, despite specific advise / instructions,

the School failed to submit the applications within the time frame in

accordance with the procedure laid down under the aforesaid GOs.

Timelines, procedure, fee etc. are also specifically mentioned in the

manner stated above. During the inspection, the Officials have found

that the School did not have the requisite infrastructure. Therefore, the

School failed to meet the required eligibility criteria to accord

permission. Thus, considering the said aspects, respondent No.4 had

rightly rejected the proposal submitted by the School vide proceedings

dated 10.01.2014. There is no error in it.

xviii) It is not in dispute that the Students/petitioners in W.P.

No.10202 of 2019 are the children of Correspondent of the School. In

the entire writ affidavit in W.P. No.6776 of 2017 including I.As., he

has not mentioned that they are his children. However, respondent

No.4 in its counter has specifically mentioned that they are the

children of the Correspondent of the School. Further, the

Correspondent has not stated that the Students have attended the

School which is having recognition and affiliation.

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

xix) Vide proceedings dated 29.12.2017, the competent

authority has directed to close down the School and to file a criminal

case against the Correspondent. When the Mandal Educational

Officer tried to close the School and lodge a criminal complaint as

directed by respondent No.2, the Correspondent of the School himself

came forward to close the School itself. In the counter, respondent

No.4 has specifically mentioned that a criminal complaint was lodged

against the Correspondent and the details of the same are not

disclosed. There is no clarity with regard to the admission of the

Students by the aforesaid College. The said aspects are factual aspects

which the Principal Secretary has to consider during the course of

inquiry.

xx) Vide proceedings dated 28.01.2017, respondent No.4 had

informed the School that nominal rolls of the Students submitted by

the School are returned and the same cannot be considered since the

Students have not attended Classes from recognition School and they

have to be submitted through recognition school. The said aspect was

not considered by this Court while granting interim order.

xxi) It is relevant to note that vide proceedings dated

28.03.2019, the Deputy Secretary to Government of Telangana Higher

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

Education Department informed respondent No.2 i.e., the Secretary,

Telangana State Board of Intermediate Education that Director of

Government Examinations released the SSC Public Exams held in

March, 2018 and that the Students have passed examinations and

qualified to appear and continue their further studies. Thus, he has

requested the Secretary, Telangana State Board of Intermediate

Education to take necessary action in the matter. When there is no

permission to the School and that the Students have not attended

regular classes, they did not possess requisite qualifications, on what

basis, the Deputy Secretary had issued such proceedings is unknown.

The said aspect has to be inquired into by the Principal Secretary.

xxii) It is also relevant to note that this Court while granting the

aforesaid interim orders did not consider the important aspect that the

School is not having permission to run Classes VI to X and their

application was rejected vide proceedings dated 10.01.2014 by the

competent authority. The said aspects were not considered at all by

this Court while granting the aforesaid interim orders. Thus, the

Correspondent of the School had obtained the aforesaid interim orders

by misrepresentation of facts. He has started Classes VI to X without

obtaining permission from the competent authority and without there

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

being any order from this Court in W.P. No.6776 of 2017. Thus, the

Correspondent of the School has played fraud on the Court and also

on the Authorities and got obtained the aforesaid interim orders. He

failed to anticipate that the future of his children will be at stake and

he has spoiled the career of his own children. Therefore this is not a

case of granting relief to 'the Students' on equities and if granted it

amounts to perpetration of further illegality. Thus, the School in W.P.

No.6776 of 2017 is not entitled for any relief. Like-wise, the students

in W.P. No.10202 of 2019 are also not entitled for any relief as their

admission into Intermediate Course is illegal and in violation of the

procedure laid down in the aforesaid G.Os.

xxiii) It is settled law that a person approaches the Court for a

writ of mandamus should first convince the Court as to what is the

statutorily enforceable right available to him. As discussed supra, the

petitioners in both the writ petitions failed to establish the said right to

issue a writ of mandamus. Therefore, they are not entitled for the

same.

KL,J W.P. Nos.6776 of 2017 & 10202 of 2019

xxiv) In Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana10, the Apex

Court held as follows:

"It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something."

xxv) However, as discussed above, the Correspondent of the

School had admitted the Students expecting permission from

competent authority, started several batches of X Class and the

students have completed their studies and appeared for SSC Public

Examinations through different Schools by way of private candidates.

Despite the aforesaid correspondence, the respondent authorities have

not acted immediately and they have not considered the application

submitted by the School immediately. This Court vide order dated

08.12.2003 directed the competent authority to consider the proposals

submitted by the School. The same was not considered within the

timelines mentioned by this Court. There are laches and delay on the

. AIR 1977 SC 276