IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Writ Petition No.3244 of 2009 Between: Prof. R.Ratnaswamy, S/o.Late Thirupaliah, Aged about 73 years, Corespondent, S.N.S.R.Degree College, Velgode, Velgode Mandal, Kurnool District. …Petitioner AND The State of A.P. represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Higher Education, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No.3244 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is, statedly, Correspondent of S.N.S.R.Degree College, Velgode Mandal in Kurnool District. There has been a dispute between petitioner and third respondent with regard to Correspondentship. When third respondent was recognized as Correspondent, petitioner appealed to first respondent. Same was rejected by G.O.Rt.No.44, Higher Education (CE.II-2) Department, dated 18.01.2006. By an order dated 24.03.2006, this Court has disposed of the writ petition, setting aside G.O.Rt.No.44, Higher Education (CE.II-2) Department, dated 18.01.2006 and remitted the matter to second respondent, directing to comply with the principles of natural justice, before considering and disposing of the appeal. It is alleged by petitioner that second respondent, who heard the appeal, acted in a manner prejudicial to interest of petitioner and petitioner apprehends that he may not be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to represent the case before second respondent. Therefore, he filed instant writ petition seeking Writ of Mandamus restraining respondents 1 and 2 from hearing the appeal in file No.1121/CE.II-2/2006. This Court, while ordering notice to respondents on 18.02.2009, directed respondents 1 and 2 not to proceed further in the matter. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Higher Education was directed to get instructions in the matter. The matter is coming up for further consideration since April 2009. Respondents 1 and 2 have neither filed counter affidavit denying the petition allegations, nor produced any instructions in the matter. Therefore, this Court heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for third respondent. The writ petition is essentially based on apprehension that second respondent might take a biased view against petitioner for various reasons perceived by petitioner. The same itself cannot be a ground to prohibit a duly constituted appellate authority under Section 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982. Therefore, the writ petition cannot be accepted. However, to ensure fairness in disposal of the statutory appeal, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner. The first respondent shall afford opportunity of being heard to petitioner or his counsel, as well as third respondent. If so advised, petitioner may also circulate written submissions, which shall be taken into consideration by respondents 1 and 2, while disposing of the appeal. The appeal filed by petitioner has been pending since June, 2008. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are directed to dispose of the appeal, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) October 06, 2009 Bvv