IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 7808 of 1999 Between: Sri Ch.Sai Ram S/o Masthan Rao R/o H.No. 3-102. 3rd Lane Prashanthi Nagar, ILTD Extention Colony Kothapet, Chirala, Prakasam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director, Higher Education, Women's College Campus, Government Women's College, Guntur. 3 The B.B.H. Degree College, Rep. by it's Correspondent & Secretary, Vetapalem, Prakasam District. 4 The Principal, B.B.H. Degree College Vetapalem, Prakasam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or direction, more particularly in the nature of writ of certiorari, by calling for the records in R.c.No:C1/122/Relieved/98-99 dated 10-04-1999 of the 3rd Respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, null and void and to issue a consequential direction, directing the 3rd Respondent to regularise the services of the Petitioner with all the benefits and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondents: 1) MR.M.PANDURANGA RAO 2) G.P. FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7808 of 1999 ORDER: Questioning the order, in proceedings dated 10.04.1999 terminating the petitioner’s services, the present writ petition is filed. In the impugned order, the petitioner was informed that he was relieved of his duties as a Technical Assistant on 10.04.1999 i.e., the last day of the academic year 1998-99 duly terminating his services and he was directed to handover charge of the records. The order of his termination is questioned in this writ petition as in violation of Section 79 of the A.P.Education Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) whereunder a departmental enquiry is required to be conducted and prior approval of the competent authority is also required to be obtained. Sri M.Balaji Medamalli, learned counsel for the 3rd and 4th respondents, would submit that the services of the petitioner were not terminated pursuant to any disciplinary action, but it is only on the ground that he does not possess the prescribed qualifications, that his services were terminated. Learned counsel would further submit that, while the qualifications prescribed for a Technical Assistant is B.Sc., (M.P.C) along with M.C.A./B.E. Computers, the petitioner possessed the qualification of B.Sc. (Computer Applications) along with a diploma. This fact is not disputed by Sri Gudapati Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is, however, contended that the very fact that the petitioner was permitted to continue for a period of nine years would justify his being continued in service, more so when there are no adverse remarks against him necessitating his termination. It is well settled that the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not take upon itself the task of determining the equivalence of educational qualifications or to hold that qualifications, other than the one prescribed, would suffice to discharge the functions attached to any post. In the facts of the present case, it is evident that the petitioner does not possess the qualifications prescribed and as such the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner, who is working as a Technical Assistant in an unaided post, cannot be faulted. I do not propose to go into the question as to whether termination of the services of an employee, for want of educational qualifications, would amount to a punishment requiring an enquiry to be held or prior consent of the competent authority obtained under Section 79 of the Act, since the petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal under Section 80 of the Act and any observations made on merits would render ineffective the statutory remedy of appeal. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to avail such a remedy, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, 16th April, 2008 v v To 1 The Commissioner, The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Collegiate Education, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director, Higher Education, Women's College Campus, Government Women's College, Guntur. 3 Correspondent & Secretary, B.B.H. Degree College, Vetapalem, Prakasam District. 4 The Principal, B.B.H. Degree College, Vetapalem, Prakasam District. 5 Two CCs to 6 Two CD copies.