IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No.21499 of 1997 DATED 9-2-2007 BETWEEN R.Bhoopathi Reddy .. Petitioner And The Secretary and Correspondent, Koneru Lakshmaiah College of Engineering, Vaddeswamy, Guntur District and another. .. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.21499 of 1997 ORDER: The proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 11.4.1993 is challenged in this writ petition as being illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner was appointed as a plumber on 1.9.1982 in the 1st respondent college and his services were retrenched on 21.1.1987 on the ground that the post was abolished. The petitioner possessed the qualification of SSC and an ITI certificate in the plumbing trade. The petitioner would allege that the 1st respondent had continued persons who did not become members of the K.L.C.E Non-Teaching Staff Welfare Association and retrenched all those who became members of the said association, contrary to the provisions of Section 83 of the Act. Along with the petitioner, 22 other employees were also retrenched. Aggrieved thereby, all the 23 employees approached this Court in W.P.No.3309 of 1997 questioning the illegal retrenchment. Since Section 89 of the Act provides for an appeal against such an order this Court, by order dated 8.9.1987, granted liberty to the petitioners to establish their contentions before the appropriate authority and seek relief. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 30.10.1987 before the 2nd respondent and pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent issued memo dated 30.6.1988 calling upon the 1st respondent college to furnish various documents and information relating to the retrenchment of all the employees. The said memo dated 30.6.1988 was put in issue by the 1st respondent in W.P.No.11171 of 1988 contending that the 2nd respondent had no jurisdiction to pass the said order. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 20.11.1991 directing that the 1st respondent herein shall furnish the required documents and information relating to the retrenchment of the petitioner alone. The 2nd respondent by order dated 11.4.1993 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and directed the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service as plumber with immediate effect and to send a compliance report. Aggrieved thereby, the 1st respondent filed W.P.No.5103 of 993 and this Court by order dated 23.4.1993 disposed of the writ petition at the stage of admission and observed that since a right of review is conferred under Section 91 of the Act, the 1st respondent should avail the remedy of review, that the Commissioner and Directorate of Technical Education should consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon and that the impugned order would remain suspended for a period of 10 days from the date of the order to enable the 1st respondent to file an application seeking interim relief and to obtain an interim order. The 1st respondent filed a review petition on 28.4.1993 and, by an order dated 10.9.1993, the review petition was dismissed holding that there was neither a mistake of fact or law. The 1st respondent was again requested to take immediate action to reinstate the petitioner into service and submit a compliance report. Since the 1st respondent failed to reinstate the petitioner into service, the petitioner made several representations, including the one on 22.10.1993. He also submitted representations to the 2nd respondent and since his efforts in this regard were all of no avail, he approached this court seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service in accordance with the orders of the 2nd respondent dated 11.4.1993 and the Commissioner and Directorate of Technical Education dated 10.9.1993. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 1st respondent, it is contended that the workman was found surplus on completion of the building activity and that he was given notice prior to retrenchment and paid compensation; that the petitioner had served under the management as a plumber from 1.9.1982 to 20.1.1987, for a period of four and half year and was paid retrenchment compensation of three months salary. It is contended that since the college is not only governed by the A.P. Education Act and several other enactments, sanction of the competent authority is not necessary prior to retrenchment. It is also contended that against the order in the review petition, the 1st respondent had preferred a revision to the Government under Section 90 of the Act on 23.11.1993 and that the Government dismissed the same vide order dated 30.12.1993. It is contended that the 1st respondent has preferred a review against the said order on 24.1.1994 and that the same is still pending. As to whether a review against an order in revision under Section 90 of the Act is maintainable is not free from doubt. In any event, Sri S.A.Razak, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not aware as to whether such a review petition was filed nor as to what orders were passed thereon since no copy of the review petition was served on petitioner. Sri J.Jayanand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent is not present nor is there any representation on his behalf. Therefore, this Court is not in a position to ascertain as to what transpired subsequent to 24.1.1994 when the review petition under Section 91 of the Act is said to have been filed by the 1st respondent. In any event, it is not even the case of the 1st respondent that the orders dated 11.4.1993 and 10.9.1993 have been suspended by the Government while entertaining a review petition under Section 91 of the Act. As such, the orders must be held to be in force. Both these orders declared the retrenchment of the petitioner from service as violative of Section 83 of the Act. Both the authorities also rejected the contention of the 1st respondent that the petitioner was engaged only for the construction activity and observed that the petitioner was, in fact, appointed in the regular course. It is well settled that a writ is maintainable even against an individual for violation of the statutory provisions of the Act. Non-compliance of Section 79 of the Act has been held to have been established, both by the 2nd respondent in his order dated 11.4.1993 and by the reviewing authority in his order dated 10.9.1993, which orders continue to remain in force. Non-compliance by the 1st respondent of the orders of the competent authority would necessitate a direction being issued that the petitioner be reinstated into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Dt: 9.2.2007 msv.