AKKULALAH R Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Services of the petitioner, a former B.Ed Assistant working in the third respondent-college since 21 February 1984, were terminated on 15-6-1989 on the ground that the management was intending to close the unaided section in the High School. Alleging that the termination was done without the prior approval of the competent authority, the petitioner has filed appeal before the Regional Joint Director of School Education, who, by his order dated 20th March, 1990, allowed the same and directed the management to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and also pay salary "for the entire period of his absence from its own funds". This was carried to the Government in further appeal by the management. The Government by order dated 30th July 1992, allowed the appeal holding that the petitioner has studied M.Phil course full-time though permission was granted to study the course as part-time and that the section in which he was teaching has since been closed down and no grant-in-aid was being paid. Against this order the teacher has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Mr. M. Sudheer Kumar, learned counsel, has contended that under Section 83 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act 1982 (for short 'the Act') termination of any teacher, by whatever name called, whether retrenchment or otherwise, and for whatever reason, is bad if prior approval of the competent authority is not obtained. As admittedly no prior approval of the competent authority was obtained, the order of the Regional Joint Director is valid and the Government illegally interfered with the order of the Regional Joint Director on grounds which are not relevant. He relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Vasavi College of Engineering vs. A. Suryanarayana. It was observed by the Division Bench in that case:

(3.) Sri Jogayya Sarma, the learned counsel for the management, has contended that the petitioner's services were terminated in view of the fact that the management decided to close down the unaided Section and mat the order of termination is valid. He also submitted that the petitioner has studied M.Phil, full-time course as against the permission granted to him to study part-time in Nagarjuna University. It may be seen that these two contentions were raised before the Government, which accepted them. There was another ground which weighed with the Government in allowing the appeal, namely, that the petitioner was misbehaving a year before leaving the institution. However, no argument was advanced by the learned counsel in that regard. The reasons now sought to be relied on by the learned counsel for the management and weighed with the Government are not relevant for the purpose of determining whether the termination is valid or not under Section 83. Whatever may be the reason, as long as prior approval of the competent authority has not been obtained, the order of termination falls to the ground as held in Vasavi College of Engineering Case (supra).