THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 11488 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are working as Non-teaching employees in the Private Engineering College, the 1st respondent herein. Placing reliance upon G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 16-05-1994, themselves and five others approached this Court by filing W.P.No.2085 of 2010. An interim order was passed on 20-04-2010, directing the 1st respondent to pay the salaries, as per G.O.Ms.No.153, dated 16-05-1994, positively, within six weeks. The 1st respondent issued a notice dated 10-05-2010 to the petitioners, alleging that they have secured temporary employment, by filing false/invalid certificates, and without holding the qualifications prescribed by the J.N.T.U (for short ‘the University’) and the A.I.C.T.E. (for short ‘the Council). It was pointed out that the appointment of the petitioners is in violation of the norms stipulated by the University as well as the Council. The petitioners were required to explain within 48 hours as to why their appointment shall not be cancelled, for not having requisite qualifications. The petitioners challenge the said notice. They contend that they are working for the past more than a decade, and the impugned notice is issued, only as a retaliated measure, for the petitioners approaching this Court, claiming higher salary. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit. According to them, it is only such of the employees, who are appointed in accordance with the norms stipulated by the University and Council, that are entitled to be paid the scales, and that appointment of unqualified persons is prone to be treated as violation of norms, leading to cancellation of affiliation, or approval, as the case may be. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri R. Radha Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, and learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent. The petitioners challenge a show cause notice. Even if a show cause notice is baseless, it cannot be interfered with, in a writ petition, except where it is issued by an authority, not vested with the power. The petitioners do not dispute that the 1st respondent, their employer, is competent to issue show cause notice. A specific allegation was made to the effect that the petitioners do not hold the prescribed qualifications. When they have demanded the wages, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, it is but natural that they are expected to hold the prescribed qualifications. It is only in the context of verification of these aspects, that the show cause notice was given. Though the petitioners contend that the impugned notice is almost like a final order, it is a show cause notice, pure and simple, since the explanation of the petitioners is called for. It is a different matter, that they are placed under suspension. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners to submit their explanations, within a period of two weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-09-2010. KO