← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaWP/18568/2007dismissed no costs

Mathew Naduvileeypedikayail, v. Edu. Dept., Rep. By Its Sec. And 2 ORS,

2020-02-25P Naveen Rao3 pages

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18568 OF 2007 DATED : 25.02.2020 Between :

Mathew Naduvileeypedikayail, S/o. Mr.Chacko, N.M. (Late) 60 years, Principal, Suprabhat Model High School, Bahsiguda, Hyderabad.

..... Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others .....Respondents The Court made the following:

- 2 - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.18568 OF 2007 ORDER :

Heard Sri M.Panduranga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Education for respondents 1 & 2, and Smt. K.Udaya Sri, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2.

By order, dated 30.04.2007, the petitioner was appointed as Principal by Suprabhat Model High School management. By order, dated 30.07.2007, having found that the petitioner crossed 58 years of age, holding that he became ineligible to hold the post of Principal, his services were terminated. Challenging the same, this writ petition is filed.

3.

Initially, by order, dated 06.09.2007, this Court granted interim direction. On filing WVMP.No.2411 of 2007, the matter was considered and having found prima facie that there was no statutory provision which would enable the petitioner to claim continuation in service beyond 60 years in a private management school, interim order was vacated, by order, dated 04.10.2007. 4.

Even now, the same issue would arise for consideration. The petitioner has not placed before this Court any statutory provision which would enable him to continue in private management school beyond 60 years. As can be seen from the order impugned, he was employed by private management. The order records that the petitioner was wrongly selected as Principal without noticing his age and having found that he was over-aged by the time he was

- 3 - appointed, within four months of his appointment, his services were terminated. Thus petitioner cannot assail the said termination in this writ petition.

5.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J Date: 25th February, 2020 KL