THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.177 and 23729 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as array W.P.No.177 of 2004. The petitioner was appointed as a Craft Teacher against an un vacancy in Princies Durra Shehvar Girls High School, the sixth respon which is admitted to grant-in-aid. Stating that an aided vacancy has a in the Institution, the petitioner as well as the Management of the Insti approached the Regional Joint Director of School Education, the respondent, with a prayer to absorb her against that vacancy. The respondent rejected the claim through proceedings, dated 09.12.200 was observed that the appointment of the petitioner against un vacancy was not approved by the competent authority and in that view matter, she cannot be absorbed against an aided vacancy. W.P.No.1 2004 is filed against it. Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 09.12.2002, the peti preferred an appeal to the Commissioner/Director of School Educ Hyderabad, the second respondent. In compliance of the interim o passed in W.P.No.177 of 2004, the second respondent passed an o dated 02.11.2004, rejecting the appeal and confirmed the order passe the third respondent. W.P.No.23729 of 2004 is filed against it. Heard Sri P.B.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, lea Government Pleader for School Education and Sri J.Prabhakar, lea counsel for the sixth respondent. The petitioner as well as the Institution made an endeavour to g absorbed against an aided vacancy of Craft Teacher. That would have possible, if only the appointment of the petitioner against unaided vacan approved by the competent authority. Admittedly, no such approv existing. Even assuming that the reason mentioned by the third respon namely, that the appointment of the petitioner did not accord with the R is not correct, it would constitute the basis for seeking approval o appointment of the petitioner against unaided vacancy. It is only when a step is taken, there would have been an occasion for the petitioner to absorption against an aided vacancy. Above all, the petitioner is not in service since January, 2002. Management is said to have orally terminated her services. Even if i oral termination, the petitioner ought to have pursued remedies again termination before the authorities prescribed under the A.P.Education 1982. Viewed from any angle, no relief can be granted in these petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDD Date:30.09.2010 VGB