G PRAKASHA RAO Vs. D E O KURNOOL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was working as a Superintendent of the Church of South India Boarding Home and was appointed as Correspondent to the C.S.I. Elementary and High School, Nandikotkur from 1-6-1985 by Order dated 29-6-1985 issued by the Bishop in Rayalseema Diocese while continuing him as Superintendent. The Executive Committee at its meeting held on 18-4-1995 took a policy decision not to continue the petitioner as Correspondent of the said School. The Executive Committee passed a resolution dated 21-4-1995 removing the petitioner from the post of Correspondent and the resultant vacancy be filled up by appointing Rev. M.B. Gnaneswar Rao. The District. Educational Officer, Kurnool under Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code and as per the proposals received from the respondents approved the transfer of Correspondent-ship of petitioner to the said Rev.M.B.Gnaneswar Rao. It is this order of approval of 1st respondent dated 6-6-1995 that is assailed in the above Writ petition.

(2.) Sri K.V. Satyanarayana, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said order of approval is violative of principles of natural juslice besides being without jurisdiction and therefore the same is liable to be declared void. A Counter is filed on behalf of the third respondent where in it is stated that as per the constitution of the diocese of the Nandyal which is a part of Church of South India, the Educational Committee has the power to deal with all matters relating to educational institutions established by it and the Executive Committee has the power either to accept or reject proposals. In exercise of the aforesaid power the Educational Committee passed the resolution dated 18-4-1995 which was accepted by the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 21-4-1995 and the prpposal was duly approved by respondent No.l in accordance with Rule 7 of the Grant-in-aid Code and the 1st respondent i.e., the District Educational Officer is the competent authority to approve the same and having approved the said resolution in exercise of the power and authority vested in the 1st respondent, the order impugned in the above Writ Petition is legal, valid and binding on the petitioner and that the school is a Minority Eudcational Institution.

(3.) It is not disputed that the institution to which the petitioner was appointed as a Correspondent is a Private Institution as defined in Section 2(35) of the A.P. Education Act and that it is a minority educational institution as defined in Section 2(29) thereof. The Educational Agency which is defined in Section 2(17) of the Act in so far as it is relevant reads as under: 'educational agency' means in relation to - (a) any minority educational institution any body of persons which has established and is administering or proposes to establish and administer such minority educational institution, and...... "Management" is defined in Section 2(27) as - "the managing committee or the governing body by whatever name called, of a private institution to which the affairs of the said institution are entrusted, but does not include a manager." Section 2(28) defines 'manager' as meaning- "in relation to a private educational or special institution, the person nominated to manage the affairs of the institution under sub-section (2) of Section 24."