THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No : 29460 of 2010 O R D E R: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed assailing the legality and validity of the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad in O.A.NO. 4782 of 2006, dated 02.11.2009 and to quash the same by setting aside the impugned orders passed by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No. 1341/C1/2006, dated 26.06.2006. The writ petitioner herein was appointed as a Part-time Junior Lecturer in vocational course on17.07.1993, at Government Junior College, Charla, Khammam District. While so, on 10.07.2006, he received the impugned order, dated 26.06.2006, informing that his services were dispensed with in view of the allegations raised therein that he misbehaved and obstructed the Principal of the college while conducting the IPASE. He filed the O.A. challenging the said order dated 26.06.2006. The respondents filed a counter in the O.A. contending that the services of the writ petitioner were engaged on part-time basis with effect from 01.08.1994, as per Act 2 of 1994, any appointment except; through a proper recruitment agency is void, and that the petitioner does not possesses the requisite qualifications of pass in B.Com, 1st or 2n d division in Typewriting (Higher) and Shorthand (Higher) and that the conduct and character of the writ petitioner was also found not good. After going through the entire material available on record, the Tribunal held that the writ petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 352, Education Department, dated 01.10.1994, and that unless and until he possesses the requisite qualifications and unless his appointment is in accordance with the procedure, he cannot claim regularization of his services and accordingly, dismissed the said O.A. Hence, the writ petition. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that any order which flows civil consequences, is to be passed in consonance with the principles of natural justice as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Ms. Binapani Dei[1]. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice on 08.03.2006 by the Commissioner of Intermediate Education treating his appointment as irregular keeping in view Act 2 of 1994, but not with regard to the present termination order. According to him, Act 2 of 1994 does not apply to the central sponsored schemes i.e. vocational course by the Government of India. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appointment itself is on part time basis and the petitioner is entitled to be continued from June every year up to March of the academic year and thereafter he will be discontinued. It is only a contract employment and is not governed by any rule. He places reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Dr.S. Dutt v. University of Delhi[2], S.S. Shetty v. Bharat Nidhi Ltd.[3] and contends that the master who wrongfully dismisses his servant is bound to pay him such damages as will compensate him for the wrong that he has sustained and therefore, the petitioner is only entitled to damages. It is observed by the Tribunal that the petitioner did not fulfill the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No. 352, dated 01.10.1994 and unless and until the petitioner possesses the requisite qualifications and unless his appointment is in accordance with the procedure, he cannot claim regularization of his service. The petitioner is a part-time junior lecturer in vocational course and therefore, he cannot seek for regularization as a mater of right, unless he is otherwise eligible for consideration of his case. That apart, there is a complaint made against the petitioner by the Principal and on enquiry, it came to light that there was misconduct on his part and under those circumstances, according to the authorities, his services were dispensed with. In those circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The Writ Petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ---------------------------- (GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) ---------------------- (K.G. SHANKAR, J) 28th January 2011 ksld [1] AIR 1967 SC 1269 [2] 1959 SCR 1236 = AIR 1958 SC 1050 [3] AIR 1958 SC 12