IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14824 of 2002 Between: B.Mohan Rao S/o. Rama Ra, A.P.S.P.Elementary School, Chintalavalasa, Vizianagaram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Correspondent, A.P.S.P.Elementary School, Chintalavalasa, Vizianagaram. 2 The District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 herein to implement the order of the Respondent No.2 issued in his proceedings in R.C.No.105/B5/2001 dt.28.9.2001 as reminded by the order of the Respondent No.2 dt.6.7.2002 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.SARMA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.14824 OF 2002 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus for implementation of the order passed by the 2nd respondent-District Educational Officer, Vizianagaram dated.28-09-2001. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner who was working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the 1st respondent-School filed an Appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the termination of his services. The 2nd respondent by order dated.28-09-2001 directed reinstatement of the petitioner on the ground that the management did not take prior permission from the competent authority under Section.79 of the A.P. Education Act before passing the order of termination. Aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent-Management in not reinstating the petitioner in spite of the order of the 2nd respondent dated 28-09-2001, the present writ petition has been filed. This court while directing rule nisi by order dated.26.09.2002 directed the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner in terms of the order of the 2nd respondent. It is not in dispute that accordingly the 1st respondent by order dated.17-10-2002 reinstated the petitioner into service with immediate effect. It is also clear from the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent that no prior permission was obtained from the competent authority before issuing the order of termination. Having regard to the fact that during the pendency of this writ petition the petitioner has been reinstated into service, no further enquiry is necessary in the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to disturb the services of the petitioner without following due process of law. No costs. --------------- G.ROHINI,J 8th APRIL 2008 *TSNR