THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR Dated: 14-06-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 330 OF 2010 Between: P. Ramesh Babu ... APPELLANT AND Dravidian University, Kuppam, Chittoor District, rep., by its Registrar and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU and THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL No. 330 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Writ appellant’s term of appointment on consolidated pay for a period of two years having been reduced to one year by virtue of order of modification, resultantly Writ Petition No. 4069 of 2010 which succeeded because it did not precede by a notice, however, while allowing the petition, it was left open to the employer to proceed afresh, of course in accordance with law. Law on the subject being that one month’s notice has to be given before termination of a contractual appointment, therefore, it was duly adhered to by the employer by making payment of one month’s salary to the appellant accompanying the notice of termination in the form of a cheque which was enchased by the appellant, accordingly the order of termination became effective, yet, he chose to file another writ petition. Along side WPMP No. 6960 of 2010 was filed which begot an ex parte ad interim direction in his favour on 09-03-2010. The said direction was sought to be vacated vide WVMP No. 1311 of 2010 by the employer. It was allowed by order dated 13-04-2010, hence this writ appeal. What prevailed upon the learned single Judge to vacate the direction, reasons spelt out in the order may be summarized: (1) There was no work which could be extracted by the University from the appellant, obviously his continuation would amount to payment of salary without any work. (2) The amount in lieu of one month’s notice stands encashed by the appellant, thus termination acted upon. The reasons given in support of vacation of the order being tenable, indulgence is uncalled for. Also for a few more reasons. This is not a case where the appellant has been replaced by a subsequent appointment of similar nature. He is not the only person who has been said goodbye.Shri T. Nagaraja Chetty too has been shown the door because of non-availability of requisite funds and work. In the aforementioned backdrop, the writ appeal fails. Dismissed. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 14-06-2010 ks