IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 658 of 2009 Between: DAR College, Nuzvid, Krishna District, Rep. by its President & Correspondent, M.M.V. Appa Rao, S/o. M.R. Appa Rao, Aged about 44 Years, R/o. Nuzvid, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry, East Godavary District. 3 K. Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Panakalu, Hindu, DAR College, Nuzvid, Krishna 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 will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 1st respondent in not taking up the appeal for hearing and not passing orders in the appeal filed challenging the order dated 11-8-2006 in Rc.No. 1152/81/2005 of 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 1st respondent to hear and decide the appeal dated 1-9-2006 filed against the order dated 11-8-2006 in Rc.No. 1152/81/2005 of 2nd respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Education and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself since the only request made by the petitioner is disposal of its appeal dated 1.9.2006 filed against the order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the 2nd respondent – Regional Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent is a Lecturer working in the petitioner College since 1999. On the ground that the 3rd respondent is not residing locally as per the mandatory rules, the petitioner college issued a letter dated 9.8.2004 to him to submit explanation and accordingly the 3rd respondent submitted the explanation. Thereafter, he was issued with a memo dated 1.9.2004. To the said memo also, the 3rd respondent submitted explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the 3rd respondent, the management has imposed punishment of stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect. Challenging the same, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent who by order dated 11.8.2006 set aside the order of punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner college preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent – Principal Secretary, Higher Education on 1.9.2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that so far the said appeal has not been taken up for hearing in spite of his repeated correspondence. Since the only grievance of the petitioner is not disposing of his appeal by the 1st respondent, which is pending since 2006, without going into the merits of the matter, the 1st respondent – Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education is directed to consider and dispose of the appeal of the petitioner dated 1.9.2006 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.22.1.2009 msv