IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1452 OF 2009 Dt.15.12.2009 Between: Andhra University, Rep. by its Registrar, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District … Appellant And Dr. K.V.L. Kameswari … Respondent Counsel for the Appellant: Sri M.V. Raja Raam Counsel for the Respondent: Sri N.C. Das WRIT PETITION NO.16574 OF 2009 Between: Dr. K.V.L. Kameswari … Petitioner And Andhra University, Rep. by its Registrar, Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam District … Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.C. Das Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M.V. Raja Raam THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1452 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.16574 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) The order dt.13.11.2009 in W.V.M.P. No.3575 of 2009 in W.P.M.P. No.21764 of 2009 in W.P. No.16574 of 2009 is under challenge in this Writ Appeal. With the consent of the learned Counsel for both the parties, we have taken up the hearing of the Writ Petition also along with the Writ Appeal. The respondent was appointed by the appellant – University as Assistant Professor in Raja Basha Hindi, after regular selection process. Her services were, however, dispensed with by the appellant on the ground that the University Grants Commission has not approved the appointment of the respondent. It is not in dispute that though the respondent was appointed on temporary basis, the appointment was not for a limited tenure. Therefore, the respondent’s services should not have been terminated without issuing a notice to her and considering the objections, if any, filed by the respondent in response to such notice. Admittedly, no such procedure has been followed by the appellant in terminating the services of the respondent. Hence, the order impugned in the Writ Petition cannot be sustained in law and it is accordingly set aside. Liberty is given to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings for termination of the service of the respondent in accordance with law. It is needless to observe that the respondent is deemed to be in service till her services are validly terminated in accordance with law. Sri N.C. Das, learned Counsel for the respondent, fairly submitted that his client is not interested in pursuing the pending Contempt Case in view of disposal of the Writ Petition itself. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal are disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition, W.A.M.P. No.3026 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15.12.2009 bnr