B. Sudershan Reddy, J.@mdashThe learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, rightly interfered with the impugned order dated 01-12-2002
of the second respondent herein on the simple ground that it has not been preceded by an opportunity to the first respondent-writ petitioner. The
learned Single Judge came to the correct conclusion that the order dated 01-12-2002 has resulted in serious civil consequences so far as the first
respondent-writ petitioner is concerned. The learned Single Judge took the view that the change of correspondentship could not have been
approved in favour of the 5th respondent herein with effect from 20-10-2002, under the impugned order. The learned Single Judge did not
express any opinion whatsoever with regard to claim of any of the parties for being appointed as correspondent of the institution in question. On
the other hand the learned Single Judge granted liberty to the second respondent-Commissioner and Director of School Education to afford an
opportunity to the first respondent-writ petitioner before taking any action u/s 24 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. The order, in our considered
opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity.
2. Sri P. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contended that the respondent-writ petitioner obtained such an order from this
Court without impleading the appellant herein who is not only a proper but also a necessary party. We are required to appreciate that in the place
of the first respondent-writ petitioner, the 5th respondent herein was sought to be inducted as a correspondent of the institution and he has been
impleaded as a party in the writ petition. The 5th respondent herein having suffered the order did not challenge the same perhaps for the reason
that the learned Judge did not adjudicate the issue relating to appointment of the correspondent. The learned Single Judge quashed the impugned
order passed by the second respondent-Commissioner and Director of School Education, on the ground of infringement of principles of natural
justice. Neither the authority who passed the order nor the beneficiary of the impugned order is before us. In our considered opinion, the appellant
herein is indulging in speculative litigation without any just or reasonable cause.
3. However, there is a controversy between the parties as to whether the appellant herein had already appeared before the competent authority in
the enquiry that was held pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and, in the circumstances, we do not propose to express and resolve the said
controversy as to whether the appellant, in fact, appeared before the competent authority. It shall always be open to the appellant-society to
appear before the competent authority, if it so chooses and make its objections, if any, in the matter.
4. With the observations as above, the writ appeal shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
