IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for prior permission from the competent authority before dismissing, removing, or reducing the rank of an employee in a private institution, as mandated by Sec. 79 and Sec. 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982.

JUDGMENT

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,J. - Aggrieved by the order dtd. 24/7/2008 passed in W.P.No.9325 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri Vivek Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri Valdimeer Khatoon, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and learned Government Pleader for Education appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. It is the case of the appellant that the 1st respondent was appointed as Teacher on ad hoc basis in Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan's Public School-appellant on 22/6/2003 and she was continued as such, by periodical extension of her tenure from time to time. However, during 2006, the appellant noticed that the certificates possessed by the 1st respondent were not recognized, due to which, her services could not be regularized and hence, it was informed to the 1st respondent vide orders dt.7/3/2007 that she would be continued only till the end of the academic year 2006-07. But, the 1st respondent has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9325 of 2007 contending that her services were discontinued contrary to Ss. 79 and 83 of the A.P. Education Act, 1982 (for short 'the Act'), and the appellant has not taken prior permission from the competent authority before discontinuing her services. This Court vide order dtd. 24/7/2008 allowed the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dtd. 7/3/2007. Hence, the present Writ Appeal.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant had contended that the 1st respondent was never appointed on regular basis and that she was appointed only on temporary basis. Learned counsel had further contended that the 1st respondent has not challenged the terms of appointment, the appointment of the 1st respondent is in accordance with the byelaws of the appellant's society only, and without appreciating the contention of the appellant that the 1st respondent was continued on probation till 31/12/2006 and she was not regularized, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition mechanically without appreciating any of the contentions of the appellant.

In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the State of Punjab and ors v. Sukhwinder Singh,(2005) 5 SCC 569. wherein it was held that probation period gives the employer time and opportunity to watch the probationer's performance and to dispense with his service for want of suitability for the post. Learned counsel has further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in High Court of M.P. and others vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar,(2001)(1) PLJR 373. wherein it was held that during probation, an employee can be terminated and removed. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgment of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in C.S.H.N.Murthy vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors,1999 SCC Online AP 785. wherein it was held that if the private educational institution can terminate the services of an employee during the period of probation, there is no obligation to seek prior approval either under Sec. 79(1) or 83 of the Act. Learned Single Judge has erroneously allowed the writ petition preferred by the 1st respondent and hence, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order dtd. 7/3/2007.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent had contended that a perusal of Sec. 79 of the Act makes it very clear that one has to take prior permission before discontinuing the employee. In the instant case, the 1st respondent was appointed way back in 2003 and she was continued up to the academic year 2006-07, which would mean that the 1st respondent has continued for nearly four years and though the nomenclature is on adhoc basis, but the real fact is that the 1st respondent is a regular teacher and when the 1st respondent is continued for a period of four years, Ss. 79 and 83 of the Act would be applicable. Learned counsel had further contended that the appellant has discontinu