QUALIFIED TEACHERS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE UNAIDED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The A.P. Legislative Council, which was dispensed with about two decades ago, was revived in the recent past, through necessary resolutions of the A.P. State Legislative Assembly and the Parliament. The preparatory steps for the purpose of elections to the Council have been initiated. Electoral lists for the respective constituencies, such as, Representatives of the Local Bodies, Teachers and Graduates, are to be prepared. No exercise worth its name, in the matter of preparation of lists, for the election of Members of Council by the Members of Legislative Assembly, or by nomination by the Governor, becomes necessary. Out of 90 seats, 8 are to be filled, through the election of candidates by teachers. This writ petition relates to the preparation of voters' lists for the 8 Teachers' Constituencies. Out of the 8 seats, one is allotted to the 3 Districts of Mahaboobnagar, Ranga Reddy and Hyderabad.

(2.) The 1st petitioner is a representative body and petitioners 2 to 4 are individual teachers, hailing from different places in the State. Their grievance is that the respondents initially prepared the voters list, in accordance with Article 171 (3)(c) of the Constitution of India, Section 27 (3)(b) of the Representation of People Act, 1950 (for short "the Act") and G.O. Ms. No.537, dated 28.9.2006. It is stated that the final voters' lists were published for the respective constituencies on 12.1.2007, and on the next day itself, another list was published, by deleting almost half of the names, on the basis of a communication dated 30.12.2006, received from the Election Commission of India, the 2nd respondent, and the consequential proceedings of the same date, issued by the 1st respondent. It is alleged that the deletion of names of such a large number of persons from the voters list is contrary to the provisions referred to above and principles of natural justice. The petitioners have enclosed various lists and copies of relevant proceedings.

(3.) The 1st respondent filed a detailed counter-affidavit, together with necessary enclosures. According to him, the draft voters' list was published on 22.11.2006. Objections were received between 22.11.2006 and 15.12.2006, and the final list was published on 12.1.2007. He stated that the petitioners appear to have come into possession of some printouts, taken in the preparatory process, and have treated them as final lists. The 1st respondent has categorically stated that the final voters' list was published on 12.1.2007, so much so that the lists were circulated to the recognized political parties, on the same day. He raises an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition, at the instance of the 1st petitioner. As regards petitioners 2 to 4, it is stated that if their names have been wrongfully deleted, they can certainly avail the remedy of appeal, and such an exercise can be continued, till the last date of filing of nominations. It is stated that the 2nd respondent did not issue any fresh instructions on 30.12.2006, and the question of amending the voters' list, on the strength of the same, does not arise.