THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.19817 of 2005 Date:08.09.2005 Ch.Varaprasad -----------Petitioner Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Secretary, College Education, Secretariat Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad. -------------Respondent ORDER: The petitioner challenges the order, dated 08.04.2005, whereunder he has been placed under suspension. He also claims certain ancillary and subsidiary reliefs. The petitioner is working as a Lecturer of Commerce in the 4th respondent college. On an earlier occasion, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and ultimately, the proposal submitted by the management for his dismissal from service was not approved. Thereby, he came to be reinstated. Subsequently, he was suspended once again by the 4th respondent, through the order, dated 08.04.2005. Several contentions are urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu. They range from the competence of the present Secretary to the compliance with the provisions of the A.P.Education Act, 1982 (for short ‘the Act’). The learned Government Pleader for Collegiate Education, on the other hand, submits that even according to the petitioner, he has since been reinstated into service and that there does not exist any cause of action for the petitioner to file this writ petition. It is not necessary to refer to the earlier round of proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Suffice to say that the petitioner has been placed under suspension by the 4th respondent through order, dated 08.04.2005. Invoking sub-Section (3) of Section 79 of the Act, the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent against the order of suspension. By observing that the period referred to in the said provision had expired and that the suspension cannot be continued beyond two months, the 3rd respondent directed the 4th respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service. The petitioner states that he has since been reinstated into the service. With that, the order, dated 08.04.2004, virtually ceases to be in force. Therefore, the writ petition, insofar as it relates to challenge of the order, dated 08.04.2005, is futile and superfluous. So far as the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid the full salary is concerned, he can canvass the same before the 4th respondent or any other authority vested with the power to clear the bills for payment of salary. Hence, this Court does not find any basis to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the departmental authorities. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 08.09.2005 Note: Issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) Jsu