( 1 ) THIS petition is filed challenging an order passed in appeal No. 55/2001 dtd. 30-8-2002 (Annexure-N) and also an order passed by the management dtd. 11. 10. 1999 (Annexure-D ). ( 2 ) PETITIONERS was appointed as a Library Assistant in terms of annexure-A. The Management had adopted the rules for requirement prescribed by the State Government for the purpose of appointment. Her services were terminated by an order dtd. 11-10-1999 (annexure D ). An appeal was filed before the Education Appellant Tribunal. The Appellate Authority returned the said appeal for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter an appeal was filed under Sec. 138 of the Karnataka Education Act before the respondent and management filed its objections to the said appeal. Ultimately, the appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioners vide order dtd. 30-8-2002 in terms of annexure-N. These orders are challenged in this appeal. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material facts to contend that the earlier order has no legs to stand in the light of the objections filed by the second respondent university in the case in hand, He further says that petitioner has to succeed only on this ground. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent says that it is necessary to have the qualification in terms of NCTE norms. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 5 ) ADMITTED facts reveal that the petitioner was appointed in terms of annexure-A on 1-8-1997. Petitioner is a Degree Holder in Library Science in terms of annexure-B. Her services were dispensed with in terms of annexured the impugned order. It is stated therein that her appointment is not approved by the university and that she has not obtained a degree in Master of Library Science as per the norms of NCTE. This order was originally challenged before the District Judge, The District Judge rejected the appeal with a direction to avail the remedy of appeal and thereafter an appeal was before the Principal secretary to government. This order was originally challenged before the District Judge, The District Judge rejected the appeal with a direction to avail the remedy of appeal and thereafter an appeal was before the Principal secretary to government. The University has clarified that it has nothing to do with the approval or otherwise of the appointment of the petitioners and hat the first respondent has not sought universitys approval for the appointment of the petitioner and the first respondent cannot submit any such proposal to the university since the university is not the authority to either approve or disapprove the appointment of the petitioner. A reading of this statement would show that the university has nothing to do with the approval of the appointment of the petitioner. ( 6 ) UNFORTUNATELY, when an appeal was filed, the appellate authority without referring to the objection of the university and without referring to the facts has chosen to reject the appeal in the case on hand, In the light of the clear statement of the University in terms of annexure-G, the appellate order cannot stand the test of law and so also annexure-D in the given circumstances. In these circumstances, this court has no option but to set aside the order of appellate authority. Since annexure-D also has no legs to stand in the light of annexure-G, it is unnecessary to remand the mater to the appellate authority. ( 7 ) IN these circumstances, Annexure- D and N are set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner if available to them in law and in accordance with law. Petitioner is ordered to be reinstated by this court in terms of an order dtd. 22-10-2003. In the light of this order, respondents are to regularize the services of the petitioner and provide her all benefits in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .