1 APHC010598112018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 28560/2018 Between: Ch. Naga Raju ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V V SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd and 4th Respondents in issuing Lr.No.1090/EGS(FA)/2015, dt.18-07-2017 and the final orders issued in Notice No.HR/16/EGS/DWMA/2017, dt.28-12-2017 as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant under MGNREGS in Geddada Gram Panchayat, Mamidikudur Mandal, East Godavari District, with all consequential 2 and incidental benefits attached to the post and pass such other order or orders…...” 2. Heard Sri P.V.V.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for NREGS, appearing for the respondents 4 and 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was terminated from the post of Field Assistant since he could not attend the contract of 7500 man-days. Against which, the petitioner could reach 5900 man-days. Learned counsel would further submit that as per the circular dated 08.01.2013, the case of the petitioner can be considered as senior mate. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that they have no instructions regarding any application submitted by the petitioner considering his case for senior mate. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petition may be disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation to the Department to consider his case for senior mate as per the circular orders. 5. Considering the submissions made, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, since there is no merit in the case as the termination is justifiable as the individual could not reach to the man-days as per the contract. However, it is apposite to dispose of the writ petition by giving opportunity to 3 the petitioner to submit representation to the respondent authorities to consider his case as senior mate as per the circular orders. 6. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to submit his representation to the respondent authorities to consider his case as senior mate. On submitting such representation, the respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate decision according to governing rules and law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 01.04.2025 ARR 4 213 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 28560/2018 Dt.01.04.2025 ARR