THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 26937 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Post Graduate College at Guntur, calling in question the correctness and validity of an order passed on 18.12.1999 by the 2nd respondent – Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur. The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, entertaining an appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent - Lecturer on 22.07.1999, pursuant to a direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 20660 of 1998 instituted by the 3rd respondent, passed orders on 18.12.1999, the operative portion of which reads as under: “ As per Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 as amended in Act No. 27 of 1987, no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed against an employee other than an employee of a minority educational institution without the prior approval of the competent authority. Therefore, the order dated 01.05.1999 passed by the Secretary and Correspondent, TJPS (PG) College, Guntur terminating the services of Kum.M. Rajeswari which was given effect from 17.07.1999 is not maintainable. Therefore, the order dated 01.05.1999 of the Secretary and Correspondent, TJPS (PG) College, Guntur is set aside and Kum. M. Rajeswari is reinstated into service as Lecturer in TJPS (PG) College, Guntur with immediate effect.” The grievance of the writ petitioner is that if an appeal has been preferred by the 3rd respondent -Lecturer, it is absolutely necessary for the 2nd respondent - appellate authority to have put the college management on notice and provide an opportunity to the college management to put forth its views on the subject. Without thus providing any opportunity, the 2nd respondent could not have passed orders allowing the said appeal. It is true that the 2nd respondent, when exercises the appellate powers, was required to put the management of the college on notice before passing final orders on the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent, in terms of Section 80 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. In the instant case, an appeal has been preferred by the 3rd respondent on 22.07.1999. That was erroneously rejected by the 2nd respondent on 06.09.1999. That was challenged by the 3rd respondent by instituting Writ Petition No.20660 of 1999. A learned Single Judge of this Court has found, as a fact, that the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent on 22.07.1999 is well within time and hence, the rejection of her appeal on 06.09.1999 by the 2nd respondent appellate authority is erroneous. Therefore, the above referred Writ Petition has been allowed directing the 2nd respondent to entertain the appeal of the 3rd respondent and pass appropriate orders on merits. Thereafter, the present impugned order has come to be passed on 18.12.1999. The Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur is not liable to pass an ex parte order allowing the appeal preferred by the 3rd respondent without even putting the management of the college on notice. If the appellate authority finds no merit in an appeal, perhaps, the appeal can be dismissed ex parte without troubling or bothering the opposite parties, but on the other hand, if an appeal is to be allowed, it is elementary in compliance with the principles of natural justice that the party, which is likely to be adversely impacted by any such decision, needs to be put on notice. Further, even if an interim order is to be passed, sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the 1982 Act makes this position abundantly clear in the following terms: “ The competent authority may, after giving notice to the management of the private institution, pass such interim orders as it deems fit, pending disposal of the appeal, under sub-section (2), if it is satisfied that the employee has made out a prima facie case for interference.” In view of this legal position, action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned order on 18.12.1999, without putting the writ petitioner college on notice, is absolutely incorrect. It cannot be sustained. I, therefore, set aside the proceedings dated 18.12.1999 of the 2nd respondent and remit the matter back for fresh consideration of the 2nd respondent. However, no interim orders have been passed by this Court in this Writ Petition which was instituted on 29.12.1999. If the 3rd respondent has already been reinstated by the management of the writ petitioner college, pursuant to the orders passed by the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur on 18.12.1999, it will cause grave prejudice to her, if she were to be checked out of the service of the college, at this distant point of time. Therefore, the 3rd respondent shall not be terminated or removed from the service of the writ petitioner college only on the ground that the present impugned order has been set aside. The 2nd respondent will deal with the appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months, duly providing an opportunity to both the writ petitioner college management as well as the 3rd respondent Lecturer. I hope and trust that this time around, the 2nd respondent – Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Guntur will not pass any orders in breach of principles of natural justice. The status quo existing as of now with regard to the 3rd respondent vis-à-vis the writ petitioner college shall continue to be maintained till such time the 2nd respondent decides the appeal, to meet the ends of justice. The Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicted supra. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 29th June 2010 ksld