SAI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Higher Education on behalf of respondents. Rule Nisi.

(2.) As the issue involved in both the writ petitions and the subject matter of the dispute is one and the same, it is felt expedient and convenient to dispose of both the writ petitions by this common order.

(3.) The 1st petitioner in both the writ petitions is the society registered under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act and established Junior Colleges and imparting education in Nalgonda District since from 1993-94 onwards. The 4th respondent granted provisional permission/provisional affiliation to the 2nd petitioner in W.P. No. 11526 of 2002 by order dated 17-11-1993. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner in W.P. No. 11531 of 2002 was granted provisional permission/affiliation by the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 16-12-1994. It is stated that the 2nd respondent-college in W.P. No. 11526 of 2002 is having total strength of 700 students both in 1st and 2nd years. Similarly, the 2nd petitioner-college in W.P.No. 11531 of 2002 is having a total strength of 725 students both in 1st and 2nd years. While so, the 3rd respondent issued a show-cause notice dated 7-02-2002 signed on 11-02-2002 stating that the management of 2nd petitioner colleges in both the writ petitions claimed the scholarships with bogus caste certificates for 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 and the M.R.O. signature was forged by the management with the aim of misappropriating the scholarship amounts in the name of S.C. students to which the petitioners-colleges submitted its explanation stating that the colleges are not concerned for preparation of bogus caste certificates and not forged the signature of M.R.O. as alleged. When the M.R.O. issued the caste certificate, it is for the Assistant Social Welfare Officer to conduct verification at the time of release of scholarship amounts and the petitioners are in no way concerned with the said bogus caste scholarships and requested not to initiate action for cancelling the affiliation of the colleges in the interest of the students. Being not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, further show-cause notice dated 26-03-2002 signed on 30-3-2002 was issued by the 3rd respondent reiterating the same allegations mentioned in the first show-cause notice, to which the petitioners submitted explanation on 9-04-2002. Being not satisfied with the explanation so offered by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent through impugned proceedings dated 30-5-2002 cancelled the affiliation of the petitioners-colleges. Questioning the same the present writ petitions are filed contending that the impugned order has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice basing on the uncommunicated report of the District Collector and also the instructions of the Commissioner, Social Welfare to which the petitioners are not parties. The petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Under Section 9 of the A.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1971 (for short 'Act 2/71') the Board of Intermediate (BOI) is conferred power either to grant affiliation or withdraw affiliation/recognition. The impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent without reference to the Intermediate Board is without jurisdiction, Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Institutions of Higher Education) Rules, 1987 (for short 'the Rules') issued under G.O.Ms. No. 29 Education (Rules) dated 05-02-1987 deals with the power to grant or withdraw recognition/affiliation, which stipulates that the Board of Intermediate Education shall be the competent authority for granting or withdrawing of temporary/permanent recognition/affiliation for all educational institutions imparting Intermediate Education. Rule 11 deals with the conditions for withdrawal of permission/recognition/ affiliation. Before withdrawal of permission/recognition/affiliation, the educational agency shall be given an opportunity to rectify the alleged defects. If the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent is allowed to stand, the careers of 700 and 725 students of the 2nd petitioner-Colleges in W.P.No. 11526 and W.P.No.11531 respectively will be at stake. Therefore, the entire action of the authorities is in violation of Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and contrary to the provisions under the Act, 1971 and the rules made thereunder which cannot be sustainable and the same has to be set aside.