ORDER : The challenge in this writ petition is to the order in proceedings Rc.No. APOSS - 11022/10/2018-ADMIN SEC-APOSS, dated 24.02.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent/Director of Andhra Pradesh Open School Society rejecting the renewal to the petitioner’s vocational junior college for the academic year 2019-20 in spite of the petitioner’s representation dated 20.11.2019 is illegal and for a consequential direction. 2. The petitioner’s case succinctly is thus: (a) Petitioner started vocational junior college for running study centre with code No.083322 for taking admissions for Intermediate and SSC under Open Schooling System. For the year 2012 the 2nd respondent granted permission on 19.05.2012 and 15.10.2014 for conducting courses i.e., Intermediate (APOSS) and SSC (APOSS) basing on the performance of the management during the previous academic years. From 2012 onwards on submission of records and seeking performance of the previous year of the petitioner, the permission is being granted upto the academic year 2017-18. During the academic year 2018-19 the 2nd respondent introduced practice of calling continuous renewal orders. In fact there is no such clause of renewal as per the original orders of allotment and granting permission. Right or wrong as per the directions of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner applied for grant of renewal for the academic year 2018-19. However, the 2nd respondent did not grant renewal permission, having waited for some time the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for grant of renewal permission for the academic year 2018-19. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dt: 13.11.2018 directed the 2nd respondent to issue renewal orders for the academic year 2018-19 to the petitioner’s study centre. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent immediately issued renewal orders to the petitioner by putting the renewal orders in the official website as per the direction of the 1st respondent. (b) Now, during the academic years 2019-20 the petitioner’s study centre orally approached the 2nd respondent and requested to grant permission for admitting the students. At that stage, the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to submit representation for getting renewal orders for the academic year 2019-20. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.11.2019. In the meanwhile the petitioner admitted students and also prepared all the particulars for sending the same to the 2nd respondent for further correspondence for getting renewal orders. At that stage, the 2nd respondent asked the petitioner to submit representation for getting renewal orders for the academic year 2019-20. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 20.11.2019. In the meanwhile the petitioner admitted students and also prepared all the particulars for sending the same to the 2nd respondent for further correspondence for getting renewal orders. Having waited all these days, the petitioner approached the 2nd respondent on several occasions for grant of renewal orders, but the 2nd respondent did not choose to issue renewal orders for the reasons best known to him. As per the procedure, the 2nd respondent must grant the renewal orders basing on the last academic year performance. The delay in passing the renewal orders by the 2nd respondent can be attributed to the said authority only. (c) The 2nd respondent having received the renewal application asking the petitioner to furnish certain documents which are unrelated to the APOSS. The first two documents mentioned by the 2nd respondent are not necessary. The other three documents were submitted by the petitioner long back and same was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent, in spite of the same, the 2nd respondent did not grant renewal orders and rejected vide orders dt: 24.02.2020. Earlier the petitioner filed W.P.No.2489/2020 and this Court vide order dt: 05.02.2020 directed the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dt: 20.11.2019 of the petitioner within one week. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed rejection order dt: 24.02.2020 which is illegal. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Respondents filed counter and opposed the writ petition mainly contending thus: (a) The initial orders for grant accreditation to the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.1421/B5/APOSS/2011, dt: 19.05.2012 and subsequent renewal orders issued in Proc.481/B5(A)/APOSS/2012, dt: 15.10.2014 are conditional and best interpreted with the condition No.1 read with condition No.5 which are as follows: Condition No.1 The Accredited Institution(s)/Study Centre(s) of Intermediate (APOSS) course approved by the Director (APOSS, Hyderabad is deemed to have been cancelled immediately on withdrawal of affiliation by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. Hyderabad, if any. Condition No.5: The permission now given for starting of Accredited Institute (Study Centre) in the college is for the Academic year 2012-13 only and it will be continued based on the performance of the management during the 2011-12. Condition No.5: The permission now given for starting of Accredited Institute (Study Centre) in the college is for the Academic year 2012-13 only and it will be continued based on the performance of the management during the 2011-12. Thus, the petitioner’s contention that the study centre continues basing on the performance of the management during the previous academic year is baseless and misleading. On the other hand the study centre continues as long as having affiliation with the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh and upon the satisfactory performance of the management in the preceding year (means number of admissions made during an academic year). (b) More precisely, the renewal of study centre for the next year depends on: i. Having affiliation of the study centre with the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. for the academic year for which renewal of accreditation requested. ii. If satisfied with the above first (i) condition, the performance of the management during the previous year is to be considered. The performance of the management is directly proportional to the number of admissions made during academic year. iii. If the total number of admissions in a course is less than thirty (30) in an academic year, it will be treated as uneconomical to continue the institution as study centre of APOSS and the admitted learners will be merged/shifted to the nearest study centres, at the choice of the learners. And the performance of the Management shall be rated as ‘poor’ and renewal of accreditation for the next year cannot be considered, even though the study centre having affiliation with the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. (c) It is in the above context, the renewal proposal accreditation of the Management for the academic year 2018-19 was rejected due to the following reasons: i. The Management failed to produce the latest affiliation orders of Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., issued to Midhushi Vocational Junior College, Valmiki Nagar, Bestavaripet, Prakasam District for the academic year under question. ii. The performance of the Management during the previous academic years of 2016-17 and 2017-18 is rated as ‘poor’ as the management failed to admit minimum required number of thirty (30) admissions. The uneconomic admissions which are less than 30 are shifted/merged to the nearest study centres on the option of learners. S.No. Academic Year Admissions made in Intermediate course Remarks 1. The uneconomic admissions which are less than 30 are shifted/merged to the nearest study centres on the option of learners. S.No. Academic Year Admissions made in Intermediate course Remarks 1. 2016-17 15 As the admissions are less than thirty (30) and uneconomical to continue the study centre, the learners are shifted to nearest study centres on their choice. 2. 2017-18 05 (d) However, in obedience to the orders of the Government in Memo No.ESE01-SEDNODOSS (MISC)/3/2018-PROG.3 SECT, School Education Dept., dt: 13.11.2018, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in Rc.No.APOSS-11022/10/2018-ADMIN SEC-APOSS, dt: 25.11.2018 granted renewal for the academic year 2018-19 and subject to grant of renewal for the next years, on submission of latest affiliation orders of the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. (e) It is further submitted that the renewal proposals for the academic year 2019-20 were summarily rejected and returned to the Management as they failed to enclose/submit the latest affiliation orders for the academic year 2019-20 issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., Vijayawada. Hence, the question of granting renewal of accreditation for the academic year 2019-20 to the petitioner’s study centre which was not affiliated to the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. does not arise. (f) It is further submitted that the system of granting accreditation and renewal of accreditation in APOSS is as follows: (1) All the High Schools, Junior Colleges and Vocational Junior Colleges under public sector i.e., Government, Municipal, Zilla Parishad, Residential and Aided institutions are Accredited as Study Centres of APOSS on their formal request. (2) All the High Schools, Junior Colleges and Vocational Junior Colleges under private management which are recognized by the competent authority of Government of Andhra Pradesh viz., 1. Private Recognized Junior Colleges and Vocational Junior Colleges. Recognized by and affiliated to the Board of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Vijayawada 2. Private Recognized High Schools Recognized by Regional Joint Director of School Education. (g) The initial accreditation and renewal of accreditation granted by the APOSS to a private junior college or private vocational junior colleges will be valid as long as the affiliation of the junior college or vocational junior college is renewed/live/alive with the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P., (h) So far as the petitioner is concerned, since the continuous affiliation proceedings issued by the Board of Intermediate is not produced, the question of issuing renewal to it does not arise. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed. 4. Heard Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for School Education representing respondents. 5. Both the learned counsel have reiterated their pleadings in their respective arguments. While it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner Sri V.S.K. Rama Rao that the renewal of APOSS is a matter of course depending upon the performance of the petitioner’s institute in the previous year and upon submission of performance records, the 2nd respondent has to extend renewal, but the 2nd respondent has unduly rejected the renewal for the academic year 2019-20 on a untenable ground that the petitioner’s institute did not obtain continuous affiliation from the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. which is not at all a condition precedent for granting renewal, refuting the same, learned Government Pleader would argue that in the initial grant of permission through initial permission in 2012 and also subsequent renewal in 2014 the first condition mentioned was that the petitioner’s institute shall secure the continuous affiliation from the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P and basing on the said continuous affiliation as well as the performance of the petitioner’s institute in the previous year only, the renewal will be made by the 2nd respondent for the next academic year, however, petitioner failed to produce continuous affiliation issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P, for the academic year 2019-20 and therefore, the 2nd respondent was constrained to reject the petitioner’s request for renewal and the said order is valid in the eye of law. 6. I gave my anxious consideration to the above respective arguments. The important aspect is whether the continuous affiliation issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P is one of the essential conditions for issuance of renewal by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner’s institute every year ? 7. In this context, I perused the initial orders of the permission vide Rc.No.1421/B5/APOSS/2011, dt: 19.05.2012 and subsequent renewal orders issued in Proc.481/B5(A)/APOSS/2012, dt: 15.10.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner’s institute, copies of which are filed along with the material papers by the petitioner. 7. In this context, I perused the initial orders of the permission vide Rc.No.1421/B5/APOSS/2011, dt: 19.05.2012 and subsequent renewal orders issued in Proc.481/B5(A)/APOSS/2012, dt: 15.10.2014 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner’s institute, copies of which are filed along with the material papers by the petitioner. Condition No.1 and 5 in both the aforesaid orders are germane for our purpose and they read thus: (1) The Accredited Institution(s)/Study Centre(s) of Intermediate (APOSS) course approved by the Director (APOSS, Hyderabad is deemed to have been cancelled immediately on withdrawal of affiliation by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. Hyderabad, if any. (5) The permission now given for starting of Accredited Institute (Study Centre) in the college is for the Academic year 2012-13 only and it will be continued based on the performance of the management during the 2011-12. A perusal of the condition No.1 in both the orders would show that the accredited institutions/study centres of Intermediate (APOSS) course approved by the 2nd respondent will be deemed to have been cancelled immediately on withdrawal of the affiliation by the Board of Intermediate Education, Hyderabad, if any. This condition is self-explanatory and it is to the effect that as soon as affiliation granted by the Board of Intermediate Education to the accredited institutions/study centres of Intermediate (APOSS) like the petitioner’s institution is withdrawn by the Board of Intermediate Education, the approval issued by the 2nd respondent shall, automatically deemed to be cancelled. Running the risk of pleonasm, this deeming provision pellucidly makes it clear that the permission issued by the 2nd respondent shall continue only during the period the affiliation issued by the Board of Intermediate Education is in force. The 5th condition is that the permission granted to the accredited institute (study centre) in a particular academic year is only for a particular academic year and it will be continued based on the performance of the management during the preceding year. The above condition says that for issuance of the permission/renewal by the 2nd respondent will be based on the performance of the management in the previous academic year. 8. The above condition says that for issuance of the permission/renewal by the 2nd respondent will be based on the performance of the management in the previous academic year. 8. The petitioner sought to interpret that for granting permission/renewal, condition No.5 alone is sufficient and since the performance of the petitioner for the academic year 2018-19 was blemishless, the 2nd respondent ought to have granted the renewal for the academic year 2019-20 without calling upon the petitioner to produce any other documents particularly the certificate of continuous affiliation issued by the Board of Intermediate Education, A.P. I am unable to accept this interpretation sought to be made by the petitioner. It should be noted that both the condition Nos.1 and 5 should be read conjunctively and at the same time the Condition No.1 must be fulfilled at first and then only the fulfilment of the Condition No.5 comes into play. Dehors fulfilment of Condition No.1, the petitioner cannot expect to secure renewal for a particular academic year from 2nd respondent on fulfilling the Condition No.5 alone. 9. In the above context, when the impugned proceedings Rc.No. APOSS - 11022/10/2018- ADMIN SEC-APOSS, dated 24.02.2020 is perused, since the petitioner has not produced the continuous affiliation, the 2nd respondent has rightly rejected to issue renewal to the petitioner’s institute for academic year 2019-20. There is no legal flaw in the said order. 10. In the result, for the above reasons, this writ petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to produce continuous affiliation issued by the Board of Intermediate Education so as to seek for renewal of its institution, in which case the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with governing law and rules expeditiously. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.