IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 9090 of 2009 Between: R.C.M. Schools, Thangallamudi P.O., Eluru-534 005. West Godavari District Rep by its Deputy General Manager, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Joint Director of School Education, Kakinada. 3 The District Educational Officer, Eluru, West Godavari 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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to: i) declare as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Education Act and Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) and 30 of the Constitution of India the action of the 3rd Respondent in not according approval to the Proposal dated 30.07.2008 submitted by the Petitioner ii) as also proceedings in Rc.No.106/A5/2006 dated 22.04.2008 in so far as they direct the management to make payment of salary as also consequential proceedings dated 31.03.2009 iii) issue consequential direction to accord approval to the proposal dated 30.07.2008 iv). Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.AKA.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.9090 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein is an aided school. By proceedings dated 30.07.2008, the Management of the petitioner-school submitted proposals to the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer, Eluru seeking approval for removal of a secondary grader teacher by name V.J.Peter Babu. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the proposal submitted by the petitioner. Under Section 79 of the A.P. Education, Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act), no teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution shall be dismissed or removed from service except after an enquiry in which a reasonable opportunity of being heard is given to the incumbent. The first proviso of Section 79(1), however, made it clear that no order of such dismissal or removal shall be passed against an employee without the prior approval of such Authority or Officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions. It is the case of the petitioner that so far as the petitioner- institution is concerned, the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer, Eluru W.G.District is the competent authority for granting the approval under Section 79(1) of the Act. In the circumstances, the 3rd respondent is bound to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the proposal submitted by the petitioner-institution vide their letter dated 30.07.2008 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI,J Date: 18-08-2009 KLP