1 APHC010242062019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10927/2019 Between: P. Sravan Kumar ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K ASAD AHAMED Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANITHA MESA (SC FOR APREIS TW SW BC) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 10927/2019 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in terminating/removing the petitioner from his service as Data Entry operator against the post of Typist in 4th respondent School without issuing any notice and without following any procedure under any law is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and further consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Data Entry operator against the post of Typist in 4th respondent School …” 2. Heard Sri K.Asad Ahmed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Ms. Anitha Mesa, learned Standing Counsel for APREIS (TW,SW,BC). 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as Data Entry Operator in A.P. Residential School. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner was removed without any notice. This Court passed an interim Order and that was not complied with. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Petitioner is a Graduate with PGDCA. He worked as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis since 2017 but without issuing any notice and without following the procedure, straightaway he was removed from service. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the Petitioner worked in the School as Data Entry Operator on daily wage basis as per the terms of the 3 agreement. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that since the individual was not attending the work regularly, the School did not choose to engage him for daily wage work. Learned Standing Counsel finally prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the material placed on record, in the entire affidavit, nowhere it is stated about any appointment of the Petitioner as daily wage worker and the date on which such appointment was made. The material on record does not show either appointment order or removal order. As rightly put by the learned Standing Counsel, the residential school may have engaged him as daily wage labour and because of his absence, they did not choose to engage him for work on daily wage basis. In absence of any contract between the Petitioner and the department, this Court is of the considered view that he is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to Costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date:21.03.2025 UPS 4 41 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.10927 of 2019 Dated.21.03.2025 UPS