CARMEL HIGH SCHOOL Vs. D E O

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6304 of 1984 dated 18-7-1989. By that judgment, the writ petition was dismissed. The appellant is the Carmel High School, Kalyani Khani, Adilabad district and was the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Deputy Educational Officer, Luxettipet, Adilabad district dated 12-3-1984.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows : The appellant is a School established in 1963 in Adilabad district at Kalyani Khani. The 3rd respondent, Sri Bhaskara Sharma, was appointed as a teacher in the appellant- school on 13-6-1983 for the period upto 24-4-1984. His services came to an end on 24-4-1984 by efflux of time. It appears that the 3rd respondent-teacher made a representation to the 2nd respondent (Deputy Educational Officer, Luxettipet) seeking continuance as teacher and on that basis, the 2nd respondent purported to exercise power under Section 3 of the A.P. Recognised Private Educational Institutions (Control) Act (A.P. Act 11 of 1975) and held that the termination of the services of the 3rd respondent with effect from 24-4-1984 was without prior approval of the competent authority under the Act and was, therefore, illegal. The 2nd respondent, therefore, directed the appellant-management to withdraw the notice of termination and permit the 3rd respondent to join duty. It was this order that was assailed in the writ petition.

(3.) The 3rd respondent did not file any counter before the learned single Judge. But on the basis of submissions made by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The learned single Judge held that even if A.P. Act 11 of 1975 is repealed by the date of the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 12-3-1984, Section 79 of the new Act viz., Act 1 of 1982 required that no teacher shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Act and the rules made thereunder and that in this case when the appointment was for a regular vacancy, it must be construed that the appointment made was for a regular vacancy ; that it could not have been terminated except in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 79 of Act 1 of 1982 and that inasmuch as the said procedure was not followed, the termination was invalid. The learned Judge further observed that it is not the case of the management that the termination was by way of misconduct.