APHC010320472012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13010/2012 Between: P. Subrahmanyam Babu The District Collector D P C Nregs and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M A KHADER Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 13010/2012 ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector D P C Nregs and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3457] ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Order:- There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is challenging the order of termination dated 24.01.2009. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant on 29.06.2007 and continued till 27.05.2008. The petitioner was again appointed as Mandal Technical Assistant on 29.08.2008 and continued till 31.12.2008, on which date the petitioner was orally informed not to attend duties. On 24.01.2009, an order of termination of the petitioner’s services was issued. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings were issued without conducting any enquiry and that the proceeding deserves to be set aside. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted several representations requesting the respondents to reappoint the petitioner as Technical Assistants. In spite of the submission of representations, the respondents resorted to accommodating influential candidates who had political influence in place of the petitioner and denied the petitioner the job of Technical Assistant. 4. The respondents in their counter submit that the Commissioner of Rural Development issued a circular dated 08.09.2008, whereby the guidelines for the reorganization of Assistant Project Directors were issued, and instructions to utilize the services of Technical Assistants recruited under MGNREGS for the purpose of CIDP/NREGS works were issued. The instructions also directed to discontinuation of the services of Mandal Technical Assistants as 3 there were no administrative cost available to meet the expenditure for payment of remuneration and other charges to the Mandal Technical Assistants. It is submitted that, basing on the said circular, twenty (20) Mandal Technical Assistants were informed not to attend their duties, and the financial exchange was categorically indicated in the impugned proceedings. 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed W.P.No.3071 of 2010, and this Court disposed of the writ petition on 15.02.2010 with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner on par with others for engaging them as Mandal Technical Assistants. The petitioner made a representation to the Member Secretary of the respondents, and during the pendency of the said application, the petitioner filed another W.P.No.27296 of 2010, which was dismissed on 08.11.2010. The writ petition was dismissed by observing that the petitioner did not challenge the order of termination, and the representation made by him to reappoint him as Technical Assistant could not be considered. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner fled Writ Appeal, which was also dismissed on 28.02.2012, granting liberty to challenge the order of termination. The Member Secretary has considered the case of the petitioner, and the petitioner was reappointed on 21.02.2015, subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. 6. Recording the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and considering the submissions that the petitioner has been reappointed vide proceedings dated 21.02.2015 and that the petitioner was posted at Rowthulapudi Mandal, and if the petitioner is continuing in service, 4 no further orders are required in this writ petition, the order of termination dated 24.01.2009 is hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 18.02.2025 PNS