THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI Writ petition No.5159 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the action of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in terminating his services from the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit subject, without any notice or order from the 4th respondent-college as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Education Act and principles of natural justice. He also sought for a consequential direction to Respondents 3 and 4 to regularise the services of the petitioner in pursuance of Rc. No.2473/JC5- 3/95, dated 15.5.1998 of the 2nd respondent basing on G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.4.1994 from the date of initial appointment with salary and consequential benefits. The facts in brief are that while the petitioner was studying M.A., he joined the 4th respondent college as Sanskrit Lecturer in the year 1994; that on completion of M.A., he was continued as Lecturer. It appears, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also sought permission from the 2nd respondent- authority to continue the petitioner as Lecturer in the unaided vacancy and the 2nd respondent after conducting detailed enquiry into the matter, has permitted the petitioner to be continued as Sanskrit Lecturer in the unaided vacancy. While so, when the petitioner fell ill on 29.6.1999, he applied for leave and sent the leave letter through his students. However, after recovering from his illness, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent for permitting him to join duty, but he did not allow him to join duty and directed him to approach the 3rd respondent. In the meantime, the 4th respondent has appointed another person in his place. The petitioner states that as he worked continuously for a period of nine years as Sanskrit Lecturer, the respondents ought to have regularized his services in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 212, dated 22.5.1994. Further, the respondents without regularising his services in terms of the said G.O., and without issuing any notice or order of termination have appointed another person in the said vacancy. Hence he filed the present writ petition. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents 3 and 4 wherein they stated that the petitioner was appointed as Sanskrit Lecturer on consolidated pay with effect from 1.8.1994 as against an unaided post. They also denied the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as Sanskrit Lecturer and stated that since the petitioner did not possess the basic qualification of M.A., the petitioner cannot be appointed as Sanskrit Lecturer. However, they sought permission of the Director of Intermediate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to fill up the post of Sanskrit Lecturer and through proceedings dated 27.3.1996, the Director of Intermediate Education permitted the respondents to fill up the unaided post of Junior Lecturer in Sanskrit (ST) and accordingly they gave an advertisement in newspapers calling for applications, but as no Scheduled Tribe candidate was available, they permitted the petitioner to continue on part-time basis. They further stated that the petitioner applied leave for one day, i.e. on 22.6.1999 and attended to duty from 23.6.1999 to 26.6.1999. Thereafter, he did not attend to duty nor he sent any leave letter. They also denied the contention of the petitioner that he sent leave letter on 28.7.1999 along with a medical certificate and stated that they never received any such letter from the petitioner. They further stated that in spite of repeated requests, the petitioner did not attend duty and hence, they were forced to appoint another person in the said vacancy. Since the petitioner absented himself from duty, the question of termination of services does not arise. They further stated that since the post in question is not admitted to grant-in–aid, G.O. Ms. No. 212 will not be applicable. In view of the categorical assertion of the respondents that the post of Sanksrit Lecturer is not admitted to grant-in-aid, the petitioner is not entitled to seek regularisation of his services as Sanskrit Lecturer as per G.O. Ms. No.212, dated 22.4.1994. In view of the aforesaid averments made in the counter affidavit, the relief sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ___________________ T.MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 29th July, 2010 pnb