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. 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 discontinued the 1st respondent without prior permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition by relying upon the judgment rendered by the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vasavi College of Engineering, Hyderabad rep. by its Honorary Secretary v. A.Suryanarayana and ors, (1991) 3 ALT 335 . wherein identical issue fell for consideration, and this Court held that removal of a regular or temporary employee without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority was held to be bad and which would be contrary to Ss. 79 and 83 of the Act. by its Honorary Secretary v. A.Suryanarayana and ors, (1991) 3 ALT 335 . wherein identical issue fell for consideration, and this Court held that removal of a regular or temporary employee without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority was held to be bad and which would be contrary to Ss. 79 and 83 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition. There are no merits in the Writ Appeal and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that Sec. 79 of the Act reads as follows: (1) No teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution (hereinafter referred to as 'the employee') shall be 'dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry 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-sec. 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; Provided further that the management may prefer an appeal against any order of the Officer or authority refusing approval under this sub-sec. to such authority or officer and within such period as may be prescribed.) (2) An inquiry under sub-sec. (1) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of charges against the employee. (3) (a) No employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated. to such authority or officer and within such period as may be prescribed.) (2) An inquiry under sub-sec. (1) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of charges against the employee. (3) (a) No employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated. (b) No such suspension shall remain in force more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not started and completed within that period, such employee shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as employee: Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee. (4) Every such employee as is placed under suspension under subsec. (3) shall be paid subsistence allowance at such rates as may be prescribed during the period of his suspension. (5) Before imposing any penalty, other than the penalties specified in sub-sec. (1), an employee shall be informed in writing of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and be given an opportunity of making a representation, but it shall not be necessary to hold an oral inquiry into such allegations. Sec. 83 of the Act reads as follows. Where retrenchment of any employee is rendered necessary by the management or competent authority consequent on any change relating to education or course of instruction or to any other matter, such retrenchment may be, effected with the prior approval of the competent authority the next higher authority, as the case may be. A perusal of Sec. 79 makes it clear 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 inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant has discontinued the 1st respondent after continuing nearly for four years on adhoc basis. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant has discontinued the 1st respondent after continuing nearly for four years on adhoc basis. But the appellant ought to have obtained prior permission from the competent authority before discontinuing the 1st respondent. The judgments relied upon by the appellant have no application to the present case as those judgments pertain to the employees for whom there is no protection as envisaged under Ss. 79 and 83 of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition in favour of the 1st respondent and this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ appeal. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.