B PRAKASH RAO Vs. DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

(2.) The Appellant lost before the learned single Judge in Article 226 of the Constitution of India mainly on the ground that the contention that a Manager or Correspondent can be removed only in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under Section 24(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act') has failed before the learned single Judge. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a Bench decision in this Court in Dr. Sr. Y. Philomena vs. Principal Secretary to Governmentv in which it is observed as follows:

(3.) Courts invariably hesitate in entering into the disputed questions of facts and when issues of fact are required to be determined or the matters of controversy are inclusive of facts which give rise to issue of fact for determination, do not exercise their extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution for the simple reason that the proceedings are disposed of in a summary manner and the correctness or otherwise of the materials or the veracity of the witnesses are left to be determined by a regular Civil Court. The determination on the issues that have been raised by the appellant by the learned single Judge may operate as res judicata in case he decides to agitate his claim in a civil suit. We observe/ therefore, that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the controversy and any findings, which will have any effect in the proper adjudication, in the event of the appellant filing a suit, recorded by the learned single Judge, must be held to be only tentative and not finally concluded. We accordingly clarify that the court has expressed no opinion on the merits of the claim of the appellant.