THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 7628 OF 1999 DATED: 14-02-2008 Between: K. Vijaya Kumari, W/o. Prema Raj, Headmistress, Sri Raja Cockshut Upper Primary School, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and four others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 7628 OF 1999 ORDER: This writ petition is misconceived. It is filed by the petitioner, who described herself as headmistress of Sri Raja Cockshut Upper Primary School, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. 2. The writ petition is directed against the order of the 4th respondent dated 02-04-1999, by which the 5th respondent is reinstated into service as Secondary Grade Assistant in the Upper Primary School with copy marked to the Headmistress of the school. If this is the grievance that is to be redressed, it is the school that should have the grievance and not the petitioner in her personal capacity as asserted, i.e., the Headmistress of the School. The school has not instituted the writ petition. 2. It also appears that there was no lawful termination of the services of the 5th respondent, who was admittedly an employee of the Upper Primary School. From the facts stated in the affidavit accompanying the writ petition, it appears the 5th respondent was working as a Secondary Grade Assistant in the Upper Primary School and one Janikamma was the acting Headmistress and Correspondent of the School. On Janikamma’s retirement on 01-08-1994, the petitioner’s claim for appointment as the School Correspondent with effect from 13-06-1994 was considered by the management and the same was approved by the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 21-09-1994. However, Janikamma appears to have given charge of the post of Headmistress to the 5th respondent on 31-07-1994 and thereafter, a turf war commenced between the petitioner and the 5th respondent for occupation of the Headmistress seat. The petitioner appears to have filed O.S.No.144/94 before the Court of District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram, against Smt.Janikamma and others seeking a declaration that she is entitled to continue as Correspondent of the School and claiming permanent injunction. She obtained an interim injunction. Later the suit was decreed by the judgment dated 22-01-1996. As the 5th respondent, being a party to the suit, declined to comply with the decree, the petitioner claims to have maintained an alternative management in the premises by maintaining separate registers for the staff. Alleging unauthorized absence by the 5th respondent and styling herself as Correspondent and Headmistress, the petitioner addressed letters to the 5th respondent alleging unauthorized absence and called upon her to join duty. The petitioner was also in communication with the Convenor of the Education Society, the CBCNC and eventually passed orders dated 24-04-1997 terminating the services of the 5th respondent with effect from 01-08-1994. 3. No prior permission of the competent authority as mandated by Sec.79 of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 was obtained before the termination of the 5th respondent. The so called order of termination said to have been passed by the petitioner in respect of the 5th respondent on 24-04-1997 is therefore a still born and inoperative order visiting the 5th respondent with no legal consequences. Even otherwise, no order could have been issued on 24-04-1997 terminating the 5th respondent from an earlier date i.e., 01-08-1994. 4. Be that as it may. 5. As the 5th respondent was not being reinstated despite an effective master-employee relationship with the school, the 5th respondent appears to have represented to the State Authorities including the 4th respondent and thus the order impugned in this writ petition came to be passed directing reinstatement of the 5th respondent. 6. The petitioner in her individual capacity has challenged this order, which she could not have done. An order directing reinstatement of 5th respondent as a Secondary Grade Assistant in the school could only have been challenged by the School or at best by the Education Society, under whose administrative control the school functions. 7. For all the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J. Dt: 14-02-2008 Rns