THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22702 of 1999 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Urdu Upper Primary School, Shakkarnagar, Bodhan, Nizamabad, respondent No.2 herein, on a consolidated salary of Rs.250/- per month. The institution is admitted to grant-in-aid, but the post against which the petitioner was appointed, was not an aided one. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice, dated 25.07.1996, alleging that he remained absent on certain days without proper leave. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 09.04.1996. The second respondent appointed an Enquiry Officer. Through his report, dated 23.09.1996, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the petitioner are proved. On that basis, the second respondent passed an order, dated 05.11.1996, terminating the services of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred before the District Educational Officer, Nizamabad, respondent No.1 herein. The appeal was disposed of on 16.10.1998, directing the petitioner to approach the management for redressal of his grievance. Hence, this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for School Education and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he made complaint against the In-charge Head Master alleging that he did not pay the salary and that he remained absent on certain days. The petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of the report submitted by him, respondent No.2 passed an order directing termination of the services of the petitioner. Even assuming that every charge mentioned in the show cause notice, dated 25.07.1996, is true, it cannot entail in termination of service. The charges are trivial in nature. When the petitioner availed the remedy of appeal, respondent No.1 acted in a totally irresponsible manner. It was not clear as to what he has informed the petitioner. He directed the petitioner to file a representation before the management itself. He has abdicated his powers under Section 80 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. At the same breath, he observed that the petitioner was appointed by a Selection Committee, constituted contrary to the rules and that he was not qualified to hold the post of Assistant Teacher. To say the least, respondent No.1 exhibited his ignorance on even basic aspects of the Act. The petitioner is yet to attain the age of superannuation. Even now, he can be taken into service. Since the post is not an aided one, the School cannot be mulcted with the responsibility of paying the back wages. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, the order, dated 05.11.1996, is set aside and the second respondent is directed to take the petitioner into service forthwith. The petitioner shall be paid the salary on par with any other unaided Teacher. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.06.2010. kdl