The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement to terminal benefits upon superannuation and the consideration of contributions made by the petitioner during his service.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandams to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2nd respondent in Na.Ka.No.905/Aa1/2019 dated 03.08.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to settle the terminal benefits and consequent pensionary benefits to the petitioner, by considering the petitioner's representations dated 20.09.2018 and 18.02.2019.)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 03.08.2019 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner's request for settlement of his terminal benefits and consequential pensionary benefits. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:-

2. The petitioner passed +2 examination in Andhra Pradesh. He joined Teacher Training Course during the year 1983-1984 at Sanjay Gandhi Teacher Training Institute, Chebroal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. After completion of the course, certificates were issued to the petitioner in January 1997 and according to the petitioner, he secured 50% of marks in the Teacher Training Course and based on the certificate possessed by him, he was appointed in the fourth respondent school. His appointment was approved by the second respondent.

3. The petitioner was served with a Memo dated 29.05.2006 calling upon him to submit explanation on the ground that the petitioner's appointment is irregular as he has not secured 45% of marks in the +2 examination conducted by Government of Andhra Pradesh. According to the petitioner, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, the second respondent has passed an order on 30.05.2006 observing that the appointment of the petitioner should not be continued and the amount already paid by way of salary should be recovered from the petitioner and deposited in the Treasury. Based on the order passed by the second respondent on 30.05.2006, the fourth respondent school, which is an aided school, in which, the petitioner was working, has terminated the service of the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No.17597 of 2006 before this Court and this Court granted interim stay of the termination order and ultimately, the writ petition came to be allowed on 11.12.2009 on the ground that the termination order has been issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the matter was remanded back to the respondents for fresh consideration.

4. Thereafter, the second respondent directed the fourth respondent school to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and take action against the petitioner to terminate his service by their communication dated 10.05.2010. The third respondent, based on the said communication, instructed the Management to take action against the petitioner by letter dated 04.06.2010. Accordingly, the Management called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation by letter dated 01.10.2010. Since the respondents were referring to the proceedings of the first respondent dated 28.02.2006, the petitioner had made a representation to furnish a copy of the same, which was communicated by the management on 11.10.2010. According to the petitioner, the order passed by the first respondent dated 28.02.2006 was never communicated to him and only after persistent requests he was able to get a copy of the same. According to the petitioner, he came to know that his services have been terminated based upon the evaluation of the Teacher Training Certificate submitted by the petitioner. On evaluation, the Teacher Training Certificate submitted by the petitioner was rejected on 28.02.2006. According to the petitioner, he was not served with a copy of the rejection order and even if the petitioner submits an explanation to the show cause notice issued by the Management, it will not serve any purpose as the first respondent has already evaluated the Teacher Training Certificate submitted by the petiti