1. The Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, the respondent herein, issued a notification, dated 03.09.1996, inviting applications for selection of candidate to the post of Lab Technicician Grade-II in Devasthanam Hospital, by way of direct recruitment. The qualifications stipulated for the post are that a candidate must have passed intermediate examination and must possess a certificate in Laboratory Technician course by a recognised institute. The petitioner submitted her application enclosing a Laboratory Technician certificate (for short 'the certificate') issued by "Rami Educational Academy". She was selected against a vacancy reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe category. An order of appointment was issued in the year1996 and her services were also regularised. Vide proceedings, dated 22.02.2005, she has been appointed against a Special Grade Post.

2. A charge sheet was served upon the petitioner on 23.01.2011, alleging that the certificate produced by her is not genuine and the institution which issued it was not recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, at the relevant point of time. The petitioner submitted her explanation, stating that the institution was recognised by the Government through G.O.Ms.No.1073, dated 13.10.1983 and believing the same to be correct, she studied in that institution and obtained certificate. She pleaded that the disciplinary proceedings are unwarranted, at a time when she has completed 15 years of service. Other grounds were also pleaded. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner, through proceedings dated 24.06.2011.

3. This writ petition is filed challenging the said proceedings. The petitioner contends that thorough verification was made by the respondent, when appointment to the post of Lab Technician was made and that it is not at all open to them to terminate her services, at this stage. She further states that no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, before the order of termination was passed.

4. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that on coming to know that the institute from which the petitioner obtained the certificate was not recognised, a show cause notice was issued and the petitioner did not dispute the said fact. According to them, the necessity to conduct disciplinary enquiry did not exist, since the petitioner did not dispute the fact that the said institution did not have the recognition, when it issued certificate to her. Placing reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, they contend that when the petitioner did not possess the prescribed qualification when she was appointed, she does not have any right to continue in service.

5. Sri V.Jagapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client was under bona fide belief that the institution in which she studied had recognition, and that the respondent also did not express any doubt as to the genuinity of the certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of selection and appointment. He contends that the petitioner cannot be penalized for the fraud played by the institution, and that the respondent ought not to have terminated the services of the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order is vitiated on account of the fact that it is not preceded by any departmental enquiry.

6. Sri A.K.Jaya Prakash Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the institution in which the petitioner claims to have studied has gone to the extent of fabricating the Government Order to the effect that it was recognised by the Government. He contends that though the petitioner may not have been responsible for the fraud played by the institution, being the beneficiary of the fraud, she cannot claim any rights, on the basis of appointment, which was void ab initio.

7. The selection and appointment to the post of Lab Technician was undertaken in the year 1996 and the petitioner was selected an