S TRIVENI Vs. ANDHRA MAHILA SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the action of the respondents, in seeking to relieve the petitioner from service as a Computer Programmer and for a declaration that the petitioner is eligible to continue in the said post, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) Facts, to the extent necessary for this writ petition, are that the petitioner, who had undergone training as a computer programmer, obtained P.G. Diploma in Computer Programming from the Setwin Institute of Management and computers. The petitioner submitted her application on 20-7-1998. Pursuant thereto, she was appointed by the first respondent on 27-8-1998. It is her case that since September 1998, she has been working as a computer programmer in the first respondent Institution of which the second respondent is an integral part and that the second respondent is not an independent institution. Petitioner would contend that she is the senior most Computer Programmer, that the School of Informatics is part and parcel of AMS Arts and Science College for Women and the appointment of the petitioner as a computer programmer was in the Arts and Science College of the respondent. A notice was issued by the Director on 12-2-2004 whereby, the petitioner was informed that 13th of March 2004 was the last late for BCA III year II Semester course, with this the BCA program would come to an end and there was no BCA I year or II year students. The petitioner was informed that her services would no longer be required, and that the respondents were not in a position to transfer her services to some other program. The petitioner was informed that her last date of working would be 31-3-2004 and her entitlement of leave would be calculated accordingly.

(3.) This Court, by order in W.P.M.P. No.7807 of 2004, dated 29-3-2004, directed the respondents to continue the petitioner on seniority basis subject to availability of work. Several contentions are raised by Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Counsel for the petitioner. It would however suffice to take note of the contention that the action of the respondents in terminating the service of the petitioner is in violation of Section 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Section 83 of the A.P. Education Act, reads thus: