THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1030 of 2011 Dated:24.11.2011 Between: Sri B.V.Chandra Sekhar .. Appellant And M.Chennaiah and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1030 of 2011 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) The appellant is the second respondent in W.P.No.25446 of 2010. The ﬁrst respondent herein/petitioner therein joined as Secondary Grade Assistant on 01.09.1978 in Sri Venkateswara High School, Tirupathi established by second respondent – University. The appellant also joined the same institution as Secondary Grade Teacher on 05.02.1992 and was promoted as School Assistant on 08.12.1999. As the post of Head Master of the School fell vacant on account of the retirement of the incumbent, the University appointed the appellant as in-charge Head Master for the institution through proceedings dated 30.09.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the ﬁrst respondent herein ﬁled W.P.No.25446 of 2010 and the same was allowed by the learned single Judge on 18.10.2011. Hence, the appellant filed the present writ appeal. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is evident from the Regulations that for the post o f Head Master, the candidate must possess P.G. Degree, B.Ed Degree, must have put in 8 years of service along with the above qualiﬁcations and also must have passed the Accounts test. However, in the present case, the ﬁrst respondent does not possess the required qualiﬁcations and the appellant holds only P.G. Degree. In view of the fact that both the appellant and the ﬁrst respondent do not possess the required qualiﬁcations, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the seniority must be taken into account, at least in the context of making the in-charge arrangement, as the School Assistant is the feeder category for appointment to the post of Head Master. Hence, the order passed by the learned single Judge does not suﬀer from any inﬁrmity warranting interference in this appeal, 4. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 24.11.2011 KH learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition ,It is evident from the record that the appellant admitted his guilt and deposited a sum of Rs.8,000/- out of the misappropriated amount of Rs.13,168/- from the Teachers’ Provident Fund. This itself shows that the appellant misappropriate the Teachers’ Provident Fund In this appeal, the counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the respondent reiterated their respective submissions. In this appeal, the counsel for the appellant/respondent submitted that the respondent/petitioner involved in misappropriation of the funds of the corporation and improper maintenance of relevant registers etc. and his reinstatement into service would defeated the purpose of placing him under suspension. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J 24.11.2011 KH