The right of appeal is a substantive right vested in the aggrieved party of a decision of an inferior authority, and such a right cannot be altered or scuttled by an executive action.

B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal raises an important point for consideration with regard to maintainability of an appeal directly before the Government under Section 89 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (for short "the Act") against an order passed by an officer or authority other than the Director.

( 2 ) THE lis arose interse two lady lecturers, the writ petitioner-appellant here in and the 3rd respondent, with regard to their continuance of service in the college of the 2nd respondent. The appellant was appointed as Junior Lecturer, while the 3rd respondent was appointed as a lecturer. It is stated that there was no post of Junior Lecturer and as such, the appellant was later on treated as a lecturer. The 3rd respondent was appointed as a lecturer temporarily during the leave period of one Mr. P. Sudarshan. Since the said Sudarshan returned and resumed the. post, the services of the 3rd respondent were terminated by order dated 30-9-1983. The writ petitioner-appellant was appointed in the post held by Mr. E. Ganga Reddy, who firstly went on deputation and later resigned. But, nevertheless, her appointment was also temporary. Permanent appointments were to be made keeping in view the vacancy positioned after complying with the procedure contemplated under the relevant law governing the said permanent recruitment.

( 3 ) AS against her termination orders, the 3rd respondent filed an appeal before the Director of Higher Education. But, that appeal was transferred by him to the Regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Warangal. The regional Joint Director of Higher Education, Warangal, directed the 2nd respondent-college to advertise calling for applications to fill up the vacancy created by the resignation of E. Ganga Reddy on regular basis. The appellant, feeling that she was a regular incumbent inasmuch as she was appointed to the post held by E. Ganga Reddy, that because of his resignation, there was a regular vacancy; and that she was to be deemed to be a regularly appointed candidate, has filed an appeal before the Director of Higher Education who was the authority to deal with the matter under Section 89 (a) of the Act. But the said director has referred the matter to the Government on the ground that as he has already transferred the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 to the Regional Joint director of Higher Education, Warangal and that the said Regional Joint director has passed the orders in the said appeal. After such a reference by the director of Higher Education, the 1st respondent has passed the orders contained in G. O. Rt. No. 1626, dated 2-12-1987 even going a step further, by directing the appointment of the 3rd respondent in the regular, vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. E. Ganga Reddy. It is this order which was impugned in Writ petition No. 74 of 1988. At the time of admission of the writ petition, an order of interim suspension was granted on 5-1-1988, which subsisted till the disposal of the writ petition.

( 4 ) AT issue, is the authority and jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to entertain the matter which was filed as a statutory appeal under sub-section (a) of Section 89 of the Act, but was referred suo motuby the Director of Higher Education, instead of disposing of the same by himself as the statute warrants. It is contended by Mr. P. Krishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned order was passed without hearing the appellant and that it was in violation of the principles of natural justice. Even holding so, we are not inclined to remand the matter, as it will only result in further delay in making regular appointments and also for the view, which we are taking with regard to jurisdiction of the 1st respondent.

( 5 ) THE other question which arises for our consideration before dwelling upon the jurisdictional factor, is the propriety of the action of the 1st respondent in directing the 2nd respondent to appoint the 3rd respondent in regular vaca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document