APHC010119912013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9611/2013 Between: J. Johnchristopher, Ananthapur Dt. & Anr and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Spl C S Of A P Med Edn Family Wel Dept Hyd 3 Ot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. G V L MURHTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE The Court made the following: 2 Order:- The petitioners are challenging the notice dated 20.03.2013, issued by the 4th respondent, whereby the services of 35 members of contract employees were surrendered with effect from 01.04.2013. 2. It is stated in the said notice that the 35 members of contract employees working at the 4th respondent did not possess the requisite qualification. As such, the list of 35 employees was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the President of the outsourcing agency of M/s.Prasanthi Zilla Samakhya, Anantapur. Aggrieved by the said notice, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1st petitioner is duly qualified and was serving as a Refractionist in the Department of Opthalmology, while the 2nd petitioner was serving as a Steno-Cum-Typist. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the contract was for a period of three months only, from 01.10.2011 to 31.12.2011. As such, the petitioners cannot, as a matter of Fundamental Right, claim for extension of the contract, and it is the prerogative of the State to extend the contract or call for a fresh tender. 5. The petitioners are aware that their employment was on a contractual basis for a limited point of time, as such, the claim of the petitioners challenging the notice dated 20.03.2013 cannot be substantiated without any basis. Admittedly, the contract was for a period of three months, and the respondents intended to terminate the said contract on account of the list of 35 contract employees, who were serving in various capacities, did not 3 possess the requisite qualification for discharging their role in the said department. This Court cannot interfere in the impugned notice, as the impugned notice would categorically indicate that the State intends to take necessary collective measures, and to fill up sanctioned posts as per the Government Rules. As such, the continuation of the 35 members of contract employees was decided to be withdrawn. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 21.01.2025 PNS