K RAMA SASTRY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the four writ petitions arise out of an existing dispute as to the right to manage an Aided Elementary School in Bhattiprolu. The issues that arise in the Writ Petitions are interconnected. The petitioner is the same and the respondents are educational authorities. Therefore, the writ petitions are proposed to be disposed of by this common order. The parties are referred to by their status in W.P. No. 21601 of 1997.

(2.) One K. Subrahmanyam started an Elementary School in Bhattiprolu village in 1940. The school known as Aided Elementary School (K.S.), (hereinafter called 'the school') was admitted to grant in aid. Subrahmanyam was himself discharging the functions of the management, manager and correspondent of the school. Subramanyam has six sons - K. Neelakanteswara Rao, K. Rama Sastry, (petitioner) K. Shankara Rao, K. Venkateswara Rao, K. Panakala Rao and K. Lakshmikantha Rao, (fourth respondent). On 27-6-1988 Subrahmanyam made an application to the District Educational Officer (DEO) requesting transfer of the management and correspondentship in favour of the petitioner. The DEO issued proceedings on 26-10-1988 approving the transfer of management and correspondentship to the petitioner. As on that date, the petitioner was working in Irrigation Department of Government of Andhra Pradesh. It is also pertinent to note that the fourth respondent claims that on 22-2-1988 Subrahmanyam made an application to the DEO transferring the management and correspondentship in favour of the fourth respondent.

(3.) Subrahmanyam died on 15-12-1989. As on that date though he was a Government employee the petitioner was administering the school as management, manager and correspondent. He continued to do so from 27-10-1988 to 1-4-1993. On 2-4-1993 the DEO issued orders effecting change of management in favour of the fourth respondent. Again on 7-4-1993 the DEO modified the order dt. 2-4-1993 changing the correspondentship from the petitioner to fourth respondent. The petitioner challenged these two orders of the DEO in W.P. No. 773 of 1993 before this Court. As there was no prior notice to the petitioner, who was managing the school, this Court allowed the Writ Petition on 14-4-1995 giving liberty to the DEO to conduct enquiry after giving opportunity to the rival claimants. From 2-4-1993 to 16-6-1995 the fourth respondent managed the school as correspondent. After the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 7773 of 1993, the DEO appointed Mandal Educational Officer (MEO) to look after the affairs of the school as special officer, who took charge on 16-6-1995.