Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education representing respondents 1 to 3 and Ms. Madhavipriya Manthena, learned counsel, for respondents 4 to 8, appears, on instructions, on their behalf and undertakes to file appearance by tomorrow.

2. The order impugned dated 22.03.2012 is one passed by the Regional Joint Director of Collegiate Education, third respondent herein, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders of her termination passed by the Management dated 08.08.2011. While the said appeal has been merely dismissed by the appellate authority only on the ground that the post held by the petitioner was not an aided post and that the third respondent has nothing to with an unaided post. The primary question, which was the subject matter of the appeal, was whether the order of termination by the management against the petitioner was in violation of Section 79 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Section 79 reads as follows:

79 -Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension, etc., of employees of private institutions

(1) No teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as 'the employee') shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:

[Provided that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed under this sub-section against an employee other than an employee of a minority educational institution without the prior approval of such authority or Officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions;

Provided further that the management may prefer an appeal against any order of the Officer or authority refusing approval under this sub-section to such authority or officer and within such period as may be prescribed].

(2) An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of charges against the employee.

(3) (a) No employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated.

(b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not started and completed within that period, such employee shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as employee:

Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee.

(4) Every such employee as is placed under suspension under sub-section (3) shall be paid subsistence allowance at such rates as may be prescribed during the period of his suspension.

(5) Before imposing any penalty, other than the penalties specified in sub-section (1), an employee shall be informed in writing of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and be given an opportunity of making a representation, but it shall not be necessary to hold an oral inquiry into such allegations.

3. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would show that the control of the competent authority under chapter XIV of the Act on employees of private institution covers all actions of the private management relating to dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or suspension and the mandate of Section 79(1) of the Act applies to all teaching and non-teaching staff employed in a private institution. There is, therefore, no distinction between teaching and non-teaching staff further into aided and unaided posts, as sought to be understood by the third respondent. Whether the teaching a