Government of A.P. and Another vs Universal Christian College of Education and Another

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Director of School Education, against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Writ petitioner - first respondent has invoked this Court''s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the appellants herein to grant permission for establishment of a college for imparting education in B.Ed. Course. After the petition was filed in this Court, the appellants issued G.O.Rt.No.2091 dated 23-12-1993 refusing permission to the petitioner-respondent to run the B.Ed. College at Nellore. The petition was thus amended and the said G.O. is challenged on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned single Judge has accepted the case of the petitioner-respondent that its application for grant of permission to establish the college has to be considered in accordance with unamended Section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982.

The affidavit filed in support of the petition has disclosed that the petitioner-respondent is a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act, that it is an institution established by a religious minority for the purpose of Article 30 of the Constitution of India and that while serving the need of the community of Christians and others, of education in the District Headquarters of Nellore, in May, 1984, it proposed to start a college for imparting education in B.Ed. Course of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupathi. Accordingly, the petitioner-respondent made an application on 28-5-1984 to the first appellant for grant of necessary permission to start a B.Ed. College of Education for Minorities and others at Nellore and informed the Government that the society was in a sound position to provide all facilities and necessary infrastructure for starting the College. The University on 25-9-1984 got the institution inspected and recommended to the Government for starting the college. The Government, however, failed to respond to the said application of the petitioner-respondent, for which, left with no alternative, the petitioner-respondent moved this Court as stated above. However, while the petition has been pending, on 23-12-1993 an order was issued refusing permission to establish the college.

It is not disputed before us that the petitioner-respondent represents the religious minority of Christians and that it did apply, as it has claimed, in May, 1984 u/s 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which section is amended on 15-5-1987. It is stated in the additional affidavit, which has been filed before this Court in appeal to the allegations in the writ petition that on reference by the Government, the University constituted an Inspection Committee, the Inspection Committee on due inspection submitted its report of feasibility for starting the B.Ed. College of Education with a strength of 100 students during the year 1984-85. The Government, however, rejected the said application by an order dated 16-7-1985 on the ground that there were already 29 Colleges in the State with a total of 3,200 seats per annum and there was thus no need to establish another College of Education in the State. The petitioner-respondent moved this Court by filing W.P.No.6307 of 1986 for necessary directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was disposed of by a Bench of this Court on 16-11-1988 stating inter alia that since considerable time had elapsed, there was a necessity to consider afresh whether there was need to establish a College for B.Ed. Course and observed:

"We cannot decide the same in the writ petition. Therefore, we direct the authorities viz., the respondents (appellants herein) to consider once again afresh in the light of the judgments whether there is such a need and then pass appropriate orders on the application which the petitioner may file now. The petitioner shall give all the necessary material in its application and the authorities may consider the same and pass appropriate order within two months from the date of receipt of the application."

Petitioner-respondent then filed a fresh application on 5-12-1988 which the Government rejected in G.O.Rt.No.1356 dated 27-7-1989 on the ground that the requirements of Section 20 as amended, were not complied with and also that a policy decision was taken not to permit any new Institution in the State and to consolidate the existing colleges. There has, however, been a parallel development, which has been stated in the writ petition and in respect of which, learned single Judge has made specific reference in the impugned Judgment that institutions, which were similarly placed with that of the petitioner-respondent, were granted permission and in cases similar to the case of the petitioner-respondent, when matter was taken up in appeal on behalf of the State before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1810 of 1994, the Supreme Court on 2-8-1995 directed the appellants to consider the case of Andhra Kesari Educational Society, which was seeking establishment of a B.Ed. College and also directed that the application of the said Society would be considered afresh in accordance with Section 20 of the unamended A.P. Education Act, 1982 and passed similar orders in SLP (C) No. 5106/95 and 8010-20/94 in respect of other two Institutions. Learned single Judge accepted the similarity in the case of the petitioner-respondent and that of the Institutions which were before the Supreme Court and directed accordingly as follows:

"Considering the order of the Supreme Court and also considering the statement of the learned Government Pleader that the Government would consider granting permission to start B.Ed., educational institutions, this Court directs the respondents herein to consider the claim of the petitioner within three months for grant of permission to start B.Ed. College at Nellore in accordance with Section 20 of the un- amended A.P. Education Act, 1982 without going into the policy decision, upon which the claim of the petitioner was rejected earlier."

Learned Advocate-General, who has appeared for the appellants, has drawn our attention to the direction of this Court, in which it is said that because considerable time had elapsed, the petitioner-respondent would make a fresh application and contended that thus this Court has upheld the rejection of the petitioner-respondent''s application for grant of permission to establish a B.Ed. College u/s 20 of the unamended A.P. Education Act, 1982. We have, however, given our anxious consideration to the competing contentions. True, the petitioner-respondent''s application of the year 1984 was rejected in due course, against which the petitioner-respondent moved this Court and in the petition, which was disposed of after the amendment in the Act, the Court directed the appellants to consider afresh and the petitioner- respondent to file a fresh application. A persual, however, of the judgment of the Court would disclose that the Court in the said case did not advert to the question whether when petitioner-respondent would make a fresh application, the same would be considered under the unamended Section 20 of the A.P. Education Act or under the amended Act. Facts, as above, clearly establish that the Government had directed the University and pursuant to the Government''s direction, the University had appointed the team of inspectors, who inspected the College and the University, on the basis of the report of the Committee, recommended for granting permission to UV petitioner-respondent for establishment of the B.Ed. College under the unamended provisions of Section 20 of the Act. A fresh application and a fresh consideration in such a situation, if it is presumed that this Court affirmed rejection of the application of the petitioner-respondent under the unamended Act, would evidently envisage the repetition of the same exercise, which it had done when it had rejected the petitioner-respondent''s application under the unamended Act. Obviously, the Government without going through the said exercise, could not reject the fresh application treating the same under the amended Section 20 of the Act, without going through the exercise of inspection and examination of all relevant factors as respects establishment of a B.Ed. College by a religious minority of the State. The Government obviously has not taken the so called fresh application as one made under the unamended Act and this Court, in our view, since it gave no consideration to the amendment in the Act, never intended that the fresh application would be one under the amended Act.

Except the fact that the earlier writ petition was disposed of with the direction as above, there is nothing which distinguishes the case of the petitioner-respondent from that of the three institutions, in respect of which the Supreme Court had given a clear direction that their respective applications would be considered under the unamended Section 20 of the Act. We have no substantial reason thus to differ from the view taken by the learned single Judge.

We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.