Judgment :- 1. Heard Sri V.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the vacate petitioners/respondents 1 and 2, Sri G.Jagadeeswar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/writ petitioner, Sri T.K. Raghavan, learned Standing Counsel for Jawaharlal Nehru Techynological University (JNTU)/respondent No.2 and the learned Government Pleader for Technical Education for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for the 3rd respondent. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner in the writ petition that, (a) he was appointed in the respondents 1 and 2-College in the post of Lecturer in Physical Education Department through Priyadarshini Educational Society, Nellore, on ad hoc basis. Subsequently, his services were regularized as Lecturer after 3 years of his appointment and he was being paid regular pay scales. (b) It is further submitted by the writ petitioner that he was discharging his duties without any adverse remarks and he organized several sports competitions in his tenure which have been detailed in the Affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He was also conducting Annual Day Sports Meet every year in the College. (c) It is further submitted by him that while so, the Principal of the College passed orders vide his letter dated 03-7-2014 terminating his services. The order reads as under: As the College authorities felt that the services of A.Judson as Physical Director is no more required to the College, we herewith giving one month notice for the termination of your services. You will be paid full salary up to the month of July, 2014. Further, you need not attend your normal duties from 04-7-2014 to 31-7-2014 and your absence will be treated as paid leave. (d) The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the said order was passed without any complaint against the writ petitioner from anybody and even though there was no fault on his part. He submits that being a private institution, the respondent institution shall follow the procedure prescribed under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 (the Education Act, for short), which clearly lays down that no teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution 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. Thus he challenged the order passed by the Principal of the College on the ground that it is arbitrary, contrary to law and sought to issue a Writ of mandamus declaring the said action as illegal, to set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate him into service. 3. Initially, this Court upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner passed the following interim order on 11-7-2014, the relevant portion of which is as follows: there shall be interim suspension of the termination order of the second respondent dated 3-7-2014 as prayed for. . 4. The respondents 1 and 2/College filed W.V.M.P. No.2146 of 2014 along with a counter affidavit on 31-7-2014 to vacate the interim order granted on 11-7-2014. The writ petitioner filed contempt case on 30-10-2014 alleging willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court by the respondents. 5. In the counter affidavit, the respondents-College contended, inter alia, as follows: (a) The petition is not maintainable for not making the Society of the College as a party and therefore is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis by Priyadarshini Educational Society and the Society is not made a party in the writ petition. The petitioner was appointed only on consolidated pay and his appointment is not ratified by the 3rd respondent-University, which is the competent authority. The income of the College is substantially reduced for the last two years as the strength of the students has come down and therefore, the College is unable to pay the salaries even for the teaching staff. Under these circumstances, the Management considered it appropriate to dispense with the services of the petitioner as there is no necessity of the Physical Director and therefore, the termination order is legal and valid. (b) The respondents-College is affiliated to JNTU, Ananthapur. The provisions of Section 79 of the Education Act have no application to the present case since the termination is not on any allegation but only on the ground that the services of the petitioner are no more required in the College in view of the reduction in the strength of the students in the College. The provisions of Section 79 of the Education Act have no application to the present case since the termination is not on any allegation but only on the ground that the services of the petitioner are no more required in the College in view of the reduction in the strength of the students in the College. Alternatively, assuming that the provisions of Section 79 of the Education Act are applicable, the petitioner cannot maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he has an effective alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal provided under Section 80 of the Education Act. (c) Contending as above, the respondents-College sought to dismiss the writ petition and to vacate the interim order passed by this Court. 6. The point arises for consideration in the present case is whether the interim order is liable to be vacated in view of the contentions urged by the respondents-College in their counter affidavit or whether this Court can proceed with the contempt case? 7. Section 79 of the Education Act applies to the employees of every private institution. Therefore, the respondents-College cannot take any exemption that since the respondents-College is affiliated to JNTU, the provisions of Section 79 of the Education Act are not applicable to the petitioner. Section 79 of the Education Act contemplates that no employee of a private institution 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. 8. The main contention of the respondents-College is that the petitioner is only an ad hoc employee, therefore he can be terminated without conducting any enquiry and without following the procedure laid down in Section 79 of the Education Act. 9. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed certain additional material papers. One of the documents is the details of the teaching staff. In the said document at serial No.76, the name of the petitioner is mentioned. 9. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed certain additional material papers. One of the documents is the details of the teaching staff. In the said document at serial No.76, the name of the petitioner is mentioned. His designation is mentioned as Assistant Professor and his scale is that of AICTE. 133 teaching and non-teaching staff have been working in the respondents-College. Except the petitioner nobody was removed from service on the ground that there is no enough strength of the students or that the college has been facing the financial crises. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention urged by the respondents-College that the strength of the students has come down and the income of that college has been reduced for the last two years. 10. Another document filed by the petitioner is the Faculty Profile Department of Humanities. At serial No.1, the name of the petitioner is mentioned. His designation is Associate Professor, AICTE Scale. His experience is shown as 7 years and his date of appointment is 06-6-2006. The contention of the respondents-College is that the services of the petitioner have not been regularized. Whereas the contention of the petitioner is that his services were regularized, therefore he was given AICTE Scale. No specific document showing the regularization of services of the petitioner has been filed by either of the parties. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has been working in the respondents-College since 7 years and that he is not working on consolidated pay. Therefore, he is a member of non-teaching staff employed in the private institution, within the meaning of Section 79 of the Education Act and Section 79 of the Education Act applies to his case. 11. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Principal of the College without conducting any enquiry and also without giving him any opportunity to represent his case by issuing a prior notice. 11. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Principal of the College without conducting any enquiry and also without giving him any opportunity to represent his case by issuing a prior notice. Though there is a remedy of appeal against the order passed by the private institution against the dismissal or removal under Section 80 of the Education Act, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the Principal of the College terminated the services of the petitioner, who was working for a period of 7 years in the respondents-College, without even issuing a notice, which is in utter violation of the principles of natural justice and as a measure of victimisation it has to be necessarily held that the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court despite availability of alternative remedy. The situation therefore warrants exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue an appropriate writ or direction. Moreover, the plea of alternative remedy cannot be taken by the respondents-College in a contempt case as the order passed by this Court is not without jurisdiction. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the vacate petition W.V.M.P.No.2146 of 2014 is dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court dated 11-7-2014 is made absolute. The respondents are directed to comply with the order within two weeks. No costs.