Petitioner challenged termination order and non-adjudication of her appeal. Court held that appellate authority must pass appropriate orders on the appeal within four weeks before further proceedings.
The 8th respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the appeal within four weeks from receipt of this order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.30752 of 2011
Between:
V.D.M.L. Kalyani … Petitioner and Sri Venkateswara Vidya Peeth (Regd.) Plot No.10, Sector-7, M.V.P. Colony, Visakhapatnam-530017, Represented by its Secretary and others. … Respondents
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH
W.P. No.30752 of 2011
ORDER:
This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 08.08.2011 issued by the Secretary, Sri Venkateswara Vidya Peeth, M.V.P. Colony terminating and removing the services of the petitioner and also the action of the Regional joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry in not passing any order on appeal preferred by the petitioner as wholly illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and violative of principles of natural justice.
The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as lecturer on 16.08.1991 to teach the Physics subject on temporary basis in SVVPMC Mahila Vidya Peeth, which is private aided college established by Sri Venkateswara Vidya Peeth in pursuance of the permission granted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No.550, Education (J) Department, dated 22.07.1980. Further, pursuant to the advertisement given by the
1st respondent, for regular recruitment of the posts of lecturers, the petitioner participated in the selection process and got selected as lecturer in Physics and thereafter, the 1st respondent approved her selection on 13.09.1993. Thereafter, she was appointed as lecturer in Physics in the 1st respondent’s college by proceedings dated 13.07.1994 and she has been paid the regular scale of pay on par with the Government lecturers as per the directions of this Court in W.P.
No.22335 of 2006 dated 24.01.2006. While so,
the 1st respondent did not pay her salaries for the month of February to May, 2009 and from October 2009 onwards, therefore, she filed a writ petition and thereafter contempt case. While the things stood thus, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 07.05.2011 posting her as Principal, SVVP Degree College, R.R.V. Puram, Gopalapatnam, Visakhapatnam, without giving any orders promoting her as Principal. While so, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 31.05.2011 stating that the petitioner did not report at SVVP Degree College, RRV Puram, Gopalapuram, Visakhapatnam till that date and therefore, directed her to explain as to why her absence should not be treated as unauthorized absence and thereafter, the 1st respondent issued impugned proceedings dated 08.08.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner. Assailing the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, 8th respondent, and no orders have been passed thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of termination is illegal, bad and arbitrary and without any notice. He also submitted that the 1st respondent developed the grudge against the petitioner because she filed a writ petition against the respondents in respect of her claim and therefore, issued the impugned proceedings. Aggrieved by which,
the petitioner also filed an appeal before the 8th respondent, Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, appellate authority, and the appellate authority did not pass any orders thereon. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that though initially she
was appointed as lecturer and later on removed from service by impugned order and aggrieved by which, she filed an appeal before the 8th respondent but the 8th respondent did not pass any orders thereon. Therefore, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction.
The 8th respondent, Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, is directed to pass appropriate orders on the appeal, stated to have been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.08.2011, within a period of four weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 22.11.2011
Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. B/o. LSK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition regarding illegal termination of services and inaction on appeal can be disposed of by directing the appellate authority to pass appropriate orders.
Whether the impugned termination order violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and principles of natural justice.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
V.D.M.L. Kalyani
Sri Venkateswara Vidya Peeth (Regd.)
Regional joint Director of Collegiate Education, Rajahmundry
Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education
G. Chandraiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
