IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5489 of 2005 Between: S.K.D.R.M. Junior College, Turumella, Guntur District, rep. by its Vice President, T.Ch. Desava Rao, S/o. Manikya Rao, R/o. Turumella Vill, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of A.P., rep. by its Prl. Secretary, Higher Education Dept., Secretariat Hyderabad. 2 the Commissioner of Intermediate Education, A.P. at Hyderabad. 3 Regional Joint Director of Intermediate Education, Guntur. 4 P. Meera Prasad, S/o. Sri Veerabhadraiah, R/o. Parvatanenivari Veedhi, Vinayashtamam Post, Cherukupalli Mandal, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to Issue a writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring G.O.Ms.No. 134 Higher Education ( IE.II.1) Department dt. 27.11.2004 in which the order or reinstatement of 4th respodnent as Junior Lecturer in English in the petiioenr college passedin G.O.Ms.No.470 Education ( CE.III) Department dt. 20.12.1994, is confirmed as illegal, void and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.N.NARASIMHA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: None appears The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.5489 of 2005 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Petitioner questions the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 27-11-2004. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of the 4th respondent were dismissed by the petitioner management vide its proceedings, dated 07- 07-1986, and the said dismissal order was questioned by the 4th respondent before the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur, and the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, after hearing both the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent, allowed the appeal through order, dated 11-10- 1990. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government and the Government by a detailed order, dismissed the appeal, in G.O.Ms.No.470, dated 20-12-1994. Aggrieved by the said order of the Government, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22841 of 1994 before this court and this court through order, dated 19-07-2001, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Government, dated 20-12-1994, and accordingly, remitted the matter to the Government directing to dispose of the same afresh, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. The said order of the Government i.e., G.O.Ms.No.470, dated 20- 12-1994, was set aside only on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner while passing the said order. Pursuant to the said remand order, the appeal was again taken on file and when the matter was posted for hearing on 27-11-2004, the petitioner stated that it has no new points to make and as such, it has nothing to say. However, the counsel appearing for the 4th respondent contended about malafide intention of the petitioner against the 4th respondent, which led to dismissal of the 4th respondent. However, the said contention has not been opposed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Government, after hearing both the parties, through G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 27-11-2004, held that the earlier order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.470, dated 20-12-1994 holds good. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when this court set aside the order of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.470, dated 20-12-1994, the question of holding good the said order does not arise. He further submits that the various grounds raised in the grounds of appeal ought to have been dealt with, while passing the impugned order in G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 27-11-2004. Admittedly, the order of the Government i.e., G.O.Ms.No.470, dated 20- 12-1994, was set aside only on the ground that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner while passing the said order. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the petitioner Management has not seriously contested the appeal and did not dispute about the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, dated 11-10-1990, with regard to dismissal of the 4th respondent from service. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that written arguments were also filed before the Government and the said written arguments have not been considered by the Government. Though no counter has been filed before this court controverting the alleged written arguments, in view of the fact that the reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and during the course of arguments, as the petitioner itself stated that it has nothing to say, the question of considering written arguments and other grounds of appeal does not arise. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that as the reasonable opportunity has been given to the petitioner and as the 4th respondent was already retired long back, it may not be just and proper at this juncture, to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter once again to the Government for fresh consideration. Therefore, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 15-07-2008 Prv ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}