THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.679 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is employed as a Teacher in respondent No.4 institution. Through proceedings, dated 14.10.2003, respondent No.4 relieves the petitioner from service. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before respondent No.3 under Section 80 of the Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). Stating that the appeal has not been taken up and that the order of relieving is contrary to law, the petitioner approached this Court. While admitting the writ petition on 09.01.2004, this Court suspended the impugned order, leaving it open to the respondents to consider the representation/appeal presented by the petitioner. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit making an effort to justify the impugned order. The principal contention is that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the stipulated norms. Reference is made to certain proceedings of the District Educational Officer and other authorities of the Education Department. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for School Education and the learned counsel for respondent No.4. By virtue of the interim orders, the petitioner is continuing in service for the past six years. Even before filing the writ petition, the petitioner has presented an appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 80 of the Act. Even now, respondent No.3 can verify the record and satisfy himself as to whether the order passed by respondent No.4 against the petitioner accords with law or not. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order, dated 14.10.2003, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall make available, a copy of the impugned order as well as the appeal preferred against it along with a copy of the this order to respondent No.3. Till such exercise is completed, the petitioner shall be continued in service. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.09.2010. kdl