1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. None appears for the second respondent.

2. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in cancelling the approval of appointment of the petitioner as Junior Lecturer (Commerce) in Sri Magety Guravaiah Junior College, Guntur, as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to approve her appointment as Junior Lecturer (Commerce) and continue her as such in an aided post.

3. The following are the averments of the writ petition:

The petitioner, who secured first class degrees in B.Com., and M.Com., was initially appointed as Junior Lecturer in Commerce in the second respondent junior college basing on the interview conducted in August 1988. Subsequently, she participated in the selections to the aided Junior Lecturers held on 27.10.1994. Along with the other candidates, she was appointed as Junior Lecturer in the aided post vide orders dated 29.10.1994. The first respondent approved the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Lecturer in Commerce in an aided post on 16.4.1996 with effect from 29.10.1994 and her post was also admitted to grant-in-aid vide orders dated 28.5.1996 with effect from 29.10.1994.

4. Ever since her initial appointment, the petitioner has been working as Junior Lecturer. Subsequently, the first respondent issued a show cause notice on 16.6.1999 alleging that the second respondent did not follow the procedure while selecting the candidates as Junior Lecturers as required in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE-I-2) Department dated 10.01.1992 and asked the petitioner to submit her explanation as to why her appointment should not be cancelled. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation within the time stipulated contending inter alia that the selection process was strictly in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.12 and also as per the rules prescribed therefor and thus having approved the selection to the post of Junior Lecturer, the first respondent is not supposed to cancel her appointment.

5. The first respondent filed its counter and the second respondent did not file any counter.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the first respondent contended as follows:

As per rules and also as required in G.O.Ms.No.12, Education (CE-I-2) Department dated 10.01.1992 the management has to submit the proposals for approval of the appointments within seven days from the date of selection, but in the instant case the management sent the proposals for approval of the selection of the petitioner after a lapse of three years. The management made the selections without prior approval of the Board of Intermediate Education which is also contrary to the rules. Further, the management instead of addressing the Regional Employment Exchange, Hyderabad, as per G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE-I-2) Department dated 10.01.1992, addressed the University Employment Information and Guidance Bureau, Waltair, for sponsorship of the candidates which is contrary to the said G.O. and the rules.

7. Nextly, it has been contended that the management advertised the posts in two local daily newspapers instead of advertising them in two leading newspapers i.e., one national and the other local which is also contrary to G.O.Ms.No.12 Education (CE-I-2) Department dated 10.01.1992.

8. Further it has been contended that the management did not obtain signatures of subject experts on minutes of the meeting relating to the selection. It was also contended that after the first respondent approved the selection of the petitioner, the other junior lecturers who were selected and whose names have been included in the selected list approached the minister for Higher Education and they also have been insisting upon the