Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs Vijaya Prakash Vidya Mandir

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared for the respondent.

Facts do not appear to be in dispute. Writ petitioner respondent is a recognised school and pursuant to the Government Order in G.O.Ms. No. 344 dated 22-7-1985, it has been permitted to admit all additional sections and posts to grant-in aid with effect from 1-6-1985. Writ Petitioner - respondent made representations for admission of two additional sections and posts to the District Educational officer and sent reminders for the said purpose. Nothing, however, it appears was done pursuant to the representations and reminders of the petitioner - respondent. It is, however, said on behalf of the appellants that in February, 1990 the Committee constituted for the said purpose rejected the admission. It is, however, conceded that the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 178 dated 22-7-1990, admitting new post as an additional post to grant-in-aid in respect of various schools, numbering 313 with effect from 1-11-1989, followed by another order, dated 3-1-1992, admitting two additional posts of S.G.B.T. teachers to grant-in-aid. Grievance of the petitioner -respondent is that its request for grant-in-aid for the additional posts to which it was entitled to, was not placed before the Committee. Learned single judge lias taken notice of the above facts, but has found in favour of the petitioner -respondent to the extent that the appellant has to extend such grant-in-aid at the rate of 6% on the basic pay of each of the two posts. He has accordingly ordered to settle the claim of the petitioner - respondent school in respect of two S.G.B.T. posts to grant-in-aid and release necessary amount accordingly.

It is urged, however, before us that the competent authority to decide about the teacher - pupil ratio and accordingly for entitlement of grant-in-aid from a specific date, has to apply itself in the light of the recommendation of the Committee appointed in this behalf. If directions of the learned single Judge are taken as final, the result will be that there will be no decision of the competent authority based on the teacher - pupil ratio. The best course in such a situation, in our opinion, is to direct tine petitioner - respondent to place all the materials before the competent authority and direct the competent authority to place all the materials before the Committee and direct the Committee to complete all its formalities to decide whether the petitioner - respondent school should be granted benefits for the two additional posts from 1-11-1989 and 1-4-1992 or from the dates claimed by it and decide expeditiously so as not to deny to the school its due. We modify the order of the learned single Judge accordingly. Petitioner - respondent is directed to furnish all informations concerning the two posts afresh to the competent authority within one month. The competent authority is directed to complete all formalities within two months and dispose of the matter by a speaking order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.