IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 14093 of 1999 Between: S.Usha Sree D/o. Vishwamber Rao Sarada Vidyalaya Junior College for Girls Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Secretary, Higher Education Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Intermediate Education, A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Secretary Sarada Vidyalaya Junior College for Girls Shamsheergunj, hyderabad. 5 The Principal Sarada Vidyalaya Junior College for Girls Shamsheergunj, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the petitiones' service is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and violation of the principles of the natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to regularise/absorb the petitioners' service against the admitted into grant-in-aid post as a Junior Lecturer in Civics in the respondent No.4 college and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SADURAJESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.P.R.PRASAD The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to absorb the petitioner against grant-in-aid post of Junior Lecturer in Civics in fourth respondent college. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as Lecturer in Political Science in November 1992 in fourth respondent college on a consolidated pay of Rs.800/- per month. She was also directed to take two classes in Intermediate and two classes in Degree Sections. Further, the fourth respondent college is running an Intermediate College, which is admitted to grant-in-aid and also Degree College (unaided). Petitioner is equally eligible for being appointed as Lecturer both in Intermediate as well as in Degree College. While that being so, Degree College was closed for want of students as there was steep fall in the strength of students. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she was asked to take Intermediate classes for the academic year 1999-2000. While that being so, according to the petitioner, abruptly her services were terminated without following the procedure as contemplated under Sections 79 and 83 of A.P. Education Act, 1982. Hence this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by fourth respondent college, wherein it is admitted that the Degree College is totally unaided college. Even in the Junior College, the post of Junior Lecturer in Civics is not admitted to grant-in-aid. The petitioner is a Post-Graduate in Political Science and was appointed as Lecturer only in Political Science in Degree College and she was not appointed in the Junior College at any point of time. She has nothing to do with the Intermediate College. Her appointment cannot be treated for any purpose in the Junior College. The Degree College and Junior College are two different units for all purposes. The Degree College is not a composite college. No right has been accrued to the petitioner to seek employment in Junior College for the post of Civics when she was selected for the post of Political Science in Degree College. The petitioner cannot complain that she was not permitted to attend the Intermediate classes from 6.7.1999 as she was never appointed for Intermediate wing. The Degree College was closed by the second of academic year 1998-99 in April itself. The petitioner has no right whatsoever either to seek absorption or for continuance as she was never appointed for Intermediate course. Therefore the question of termination or retrenchment of her services in the Junior College does not arise. The wit petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. While admitting the writ petition, this Court granted interim direction directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service until further orders. Thus, petitioner is being continued in service for the last 10 years. Admittedly, no notice of any kind was issued as contemplated under Section 79 read with Section 83 of A.P. Education Act before dispensing with the services of the petitioner. May be, petitioner has no right whatsoever to continue in service, since B.A. classes were closed during the academic year 1998-99, but that does not mean the services of the petitioner can be dispensed with unceremoniously without following the procedure as required under law. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to hold the impugned action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner abruptly without following the procedure as required under Sections 79 or 83 of A.P. Education Act is arbitrary and illegal. However, this will not preclude the respondents from issuing a notice as required under law and dispensing with the services of the petitioner, if necessary. It is always open for the respondents to continue the petitioner, if her services are necessary in the Intermediate section and consider her case for regularization, if necessary. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 17.4.2008 DA