APHC010173182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 9004/2025 Between: Gajjala Sudarshan Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NARAHARI BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 CGR, J W.P.No.9004 of 2025 The Court made the following order: The petitioner filed present writ petition questioning the inaction of 2nd respondent in deciding appeal dated 19.03.2025, and also stay application filed along with, against the order passed by the 4th respondent terminating the petitioner as Field Assistant at Pendluru Village, Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District, and appointing 7th respondent as Field Assistant by proceedings in Rc.No.815/HR/FA/PLVD/2024 dated 13.03.2025, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to provisions of Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant in the year 2006. By proceedings dated 20.01.2025, petitioner was temporarily suspended from service as Filed Assistant on certain allegations and he was called upon to submit explanation. Upon submitting explanation, the 4th respondent by proceedings dated 05.03.2025 terminated his service. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal before the 2nd respondent on 19.03.2025 and also filed an application for staying of the impugned order therein. As the 2nd respondent has not taken up the matter, and in the meanwhile, the 7th respondent was appointed in the place of petitioner, the petitioner preferred present writ petition. 3 CGR, J W.P.No.9004 of 2025 3. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Ms P.Revathi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Smt B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has availed statutory remedy of filing appeal against the order of removal, pending said appeal respondents are precluded from making any permanent appointment to the said post and in the event petitioner succeeds, he would be deprived of being reappointment. 5. Ms P.Revathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that the appeal itself will be decided on merits within reasonable time. 6. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent to decide the very appeal itself, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of thirty (30) days from today, in accordance with law. As the 7th respondent has already been appointed and taken charge in the place of petitioner, such appointment shall be subject to outcome of appeal before the 2nd respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 CGR, J W.P.No.9004 of 2025 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 07.04.2025 KBN