IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10052 of 1997 Between: Smt.Songa Evangeli, W/o I.Mohan kumar, R/o Thompellamoodi, Lanka-peta, Eluru, W.G.Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Govt. of A.P., Rep by the Secretary, School Education, Secretariat, hyderbad. 2 The Director of School Education, Saifabad, hyderbad. 3 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada, E.G.Dist. 4 The District Educational Officer, Eluru. W.G.Dist., 5 The management of the W.M.E.Upper Primary School, Rep by its Correspondent, Pathebad, Eluru. W.G.Dist., .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.BALAKRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.5 to continue the petitioner in service as Craft Teacher in its school by declaring the proceedings dated 6.2.1997 issued by the 5th respondent, retrenching the petitioner from service with effect from 28.2.1997 and proceedings dated 16.1.1997 said to have been issued by respondent No. 2 as illegal. The petitioner was working as Craft Teacher in respondent No. 5 Institution. Admittedly, it was not admitted to grant-in-aid. When there was a threat of her removal, she filed Writ Petition No. 19392 of 1995. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 1.11.1996, wherein this Court observed that since respondent No. 5 is expressing financial difficulties in continuing the petitioner, it shall be free to obtain approval from the competent authority under Section 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short “the Act”) before terminating the petitioner’s services. Subsequently, respondent No. 5 issued notice dated 6.2.1997 informing the petitioner that her services will be terminated with effect from 28.2.1997. The said notice was returned un-served. Later, on 28.2.1997, respondent No. 5 passed the impugned order, wherein, the petitioner was informed that her services will be terminated with effect from 28.2.1997. This order has been questioned in this writ petition. Sri L. Balakrishna Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the termination of the petitioner’s services is contrary to the provisions of Section 83 of the Act and also the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 19392 of 1995. The learned counsel also placed before me the proceedings of respondent No. 2 in Rc.No. 64/A3/2005 dated 26.8.2005 and submitted that under G.O.Ms.No. 49/Edn. Dated 26.2.1998, the post of Craft Teacher was admitted to grant-in-aid but respondent No. 5 has not taken action to give effect to the said proceedings. Sri Y. Vivekanand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submitted that respondent No. 5 followed the procedure prescribed under Section 83 of the Act. With regard to the proceedings of respondent No. 2 placed by the petitioner, referred to above, he submitted that respondent No. 5 is not aware of existence of G.O.Ms.No. 49 dated 26.2.1998. As regards the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 apart from filing counter affidavit filed the correspondence with regard to the termination of the petitioner’s services. By proceedings dated 16.1.1997, respondent No. 2 informed respondent No. 5 that with reference to the latter’s letter dated 20.12.1996, and in pursuance of the directions of this court in Writ Petition No. 19392 of 1995, the correspondent of respondent No. 5 is requested to take action as per Rule (sic-Section) 83 of the Act and submit compliance. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2, it is stated that respondent No. 5 applied for permission to him to retrench the petitioner on 20.12.1996 and accordingly, he directed respondent No.5 to take action as per Section 83 of the Act and as per the direction of this Court in W.P.No. 19392 of 1995. The above mentioned material and the averments made by respondent No. 2 clearly show that respondent No. 5 had followed the procedure as required under Section 83 of the Act by obtaining the former’s permission for terminating the services of the petitioner. I do not therefore, find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No. 5 did not follow the procedure before her services were terminated. With regard to the contention based on proceedings dated 26.8.2005 of respondent No. 2, since the issue raised in this writ petition is confined to the legality or otherwise of the termination of the petitioner’s services in the year 1997, the purported admission to grant-in-aid in respect of Craft Teacher in 1998, which is a later event, falls outside the scope of the writ petition. While it is the stand of respondent No. 5 that it is not aware of any such proceedings stated to have been issued in the year 1998 admitting the Craft Teachers post to grant in aid, at any rate, the said proceedings would not invalidate the termination order passed by the 5th respondent prior to the said event. If the Craft Teacher post was subsequently admitted into grant-in-aid, the petitioner shall be at liberty to avail appropriate legal remedy as the same gives rise to a fresh cause of action. Subject to above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. ______________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dt. 8.12.2008 KA