THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.12141 of 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari assailing the order, dated 16.12.2009 passed in O.A.No.4314 of 2007 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the first respondent was appointed as Part Time Lecturer (Vocational) at Government Junior College, Rajam, Srikakulam District-third petitioner, on 22.07.1991 and his services were regularized along with others vide G.O.Rt.No.75, dated 17.10.2002. While so, the second petitioner issued a show cause notice, dated 24.02.2006 to the first respondent stating that he does not possess requisite qualifications for the post of Junior Lecturer as per G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 20.04.1989, and he submitted his explanation for the same. Since the said explanation is not satisfactory, departmental enquiry was conduced against the first respondent and as per the Enquiry Report, dated 22.12.2006 of the third petitioner, the first respondent is not qualified as per G.O.Ms.No.146, dated 20.04.1989 and not fulfilled the conditions of requisite qualification and not put in five academic years of service as stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994 for regularization. Therefore, the second petitioner issued proceedings dated 10.07.2007 withdrawing the orders of regularization of service of the first respondent as Junior Lecturer. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent filed the above said O.A. before the Tribunal, which in turn set aside the proceedings dated 10.07.2007 and remitted the matter to the second petitioner with a direction to send the file relating to the first respondent to the first petitioner for want of jurisdiction and after receipt of the file, the first petitioner shall pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity to the first respondent. Assailing the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 3. Heard the learned Government Pleader for Services-I and the learned counsel for the first respondent. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I vehemently contended that the Tribunal ought not to have allowed the O.A. since the first respondent is not entitled to regularization of his service as he has not fulfilled the conditions of regularization prescribed by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.352, dated 01.10.1994, and that the Government is empowered to withdraw or modify any order, if it is found erroneous. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the enquiry conducted against the first respondent is not in accordance with the procedure as contemplated under the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991. He further contended that as the first petitioner, after following the procedure prescribed, regularized the services of the first respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 17.10.2002, the second petitioner being the Commissioner of Intermediate Education is not competent to withdraw such regularization of services. 6. From a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that the services of the first respondent were regularized by the first petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 17.10.2002, based on the proposals sent by the second petitioner that certain Part-time Junior Lecturers have fulfilled the conditions of regularization of their services on par with the individuals, whose services were already regularized as per G.O.Ms.No.170, dated 05.12.2000. But, contrary to the said proposals, the second petitioner issued proceedings dated 10.07.2007 withdrawing the regularization of services of the first respondent as Junior Lecturer. Be that as it may, by the order impugned, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the second petitioner with a direction to send the file relating to the first respondent to the first petitioner for want of jurisdiction and on receipt of the same, the first petitioner shall pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity to the first respondent. From this, it can be inferred that the subject matter is pending with the first petitioner. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we direct the first petitioner to pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of being head to the first respondent, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date:01.06.2010. sj