THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI WRIT PETITION No. 6258 OF 2000 ORAL ORDER: The proceedings Rc.No. 472/PC.IV-2/99 dated 15.2.2000 issued by the first respondent negativing the request of the petitioner for reinstatement, is questioned in this writ petition. The petitioner herein joined as Lecturer in unaided section of Chemistry Department in SGHR and MCMR College, Guntur on 27.7.1989. He was selected as lecturer in Chemistry in the second respondent college and joined on 1.8.1990 in an aided post and was terminated in the month of March, 1995 even though there was workload and his juniors were continued. He submitted a representation to the third respondent, who directed the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner also filed WP No. 29760 of 1995 assailing the termination and this court by order dated 10.11.1999 directed the first respondent to pass appropriate orders. It is contended by the petitioner that his termination is contrary to Sec. 83 of the A.P. Education Act. The first respondent, pursuant to the direction issued in the above writ petition, issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.2.2000 clarifying that the provisions of A.P. Education Act do not apply to Part Time Lecturers. It is submitted by the petitioner that the case of the writ petitioner in W.P. No.16094 of 1997 is akin to that of his case and this court by order dated 9.6.1998 has allowed the said writ petition. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. The first and second respondents have filed separate counter affidavits. The sum and substance of the counters is that the A.P. Education Act is not applicable in the case of the petitioner inasmuch as he was appointed as a Part Time Lecturer. Both the respondents did not advert to the claim of the petitioner with regard to the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 16094 of 1997 who, according to the petitioner is similarly placed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent. The factual aspects are not in dispute. When the services of the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 16094 of 1997, who was appointed on ad hoc basis on a consolidated pay, were terminated, he filed the above writ petition and this court by order dated 9.6.1998, on elaborate consideration has directed the Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, to pass appropriate orders and to communicate the same to the Secretary and Correspondent, Hindu College, Guntur, who after receipt of the same, was directed to consider the case of the petitioner. This claim of the petitioner was not adverted to by the respondents in their counters. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the findings recorded in the order dated 9.6.1998 passed in W.P. No. 16094 of 1997 and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the second respondent, who in turn, after receipt of such orders from the first respondent, shall consider the same and communicate the order that may be passed to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of such order from the first respondent. No order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 13.8.2010 CHV