HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY Dated: 18-01-2010 WRIT APPEAL No. 1483 OF 2009 Between: M.V.N.J.S & R.V.R College of Arts & Sciences, Malkipuram, East Godavari District, rep., by its Secretary & Correspondent, Sri Mangina Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, S/o. Satyanarayana Murthy, aged 63 years, r/o. Lakkavaram, Malkipuram Mandal, East Godavari District ... APPELLANT AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and two others ... RESPONDENTS HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL No. 1483 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The appellant – college authority had dismissed respondent No.3 – lecturer from service by an order dated 30-04-1990. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.3 had filed an appeal before the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education who had allowed the appeal because necessary permission under first proviso to Section 79 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’) had not been obtained by the appellant – college authority before passing the impugned order of dismissal. 2. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, further appeal was filed by the college authority before the State which has also been dismissed by an order dated 07-02-1991. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant – college authority filed Writ Petition No.8905 of 1999 which has been rejected and being aggrieved by the said order of rejection, this appeal has been filed by the appellant – college authority. 3. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had not obtained permission under first proviso to Section 79 (1) of the Act. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has conceded to the said fact. The only submission made by him is that the appellant might not be in a position to get grant in respect of the amount of salary which might be paid to the respondent – lecturer by way of back wages. 4. At this juncture, we are not concerned whether the amount of back wages to be paid by the appellant is to be reimbursed by way of grant to it. The fact remains that necessary permission under first proviso to Section 79 (1) of the Act had not been obtained and, therefore, the concerned authorities including the learned single Judge have held that the order of dismissal is bad in law. 5. We do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6. As a sequel to dismissal of the appeal, WAMP No. 3092 of 2009, filed by the appellant for interim relief, is also dismissed. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18-01-2010 ks