1 APHC010606252018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 28880/2018 Between: K. Nagaraju, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep By Its Principal Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 28880 of 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the 5th respondent in orally directing the petitioner not to attend the duties of Field Assistant of Demakethepalli Grama Panchayath, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District without assigning any valid reasons, without issuing any notice and without having any jurisdiction is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 5 to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant of Demakethepalli Grama Panchayath, Chilamathur Mandal, Anantapur District and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri S. Mahendra, learned Counsel representing Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Special Counsel for NREGS and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondents. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner worked as Field Assistant on Contract basis from the year 2006 till the year 2015. The 1st contract had been extended from time to time. Later the services of the petitioner as Field Assistant was not extended. Then, he filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No. 29872 of 2015 along with batch matters. This Court has disposed of the matter on 26.08.2015 with some directions. Learned Counsel would further submit that Three Men Committee is constituted, they have also given a report to the effect that the petitioner could not achieve the targets and he could give mandate @ 62% only, so he is not eligible for extension of contract. The District Collector accordingly, issued the 3 endorsement dated 20.05.2016. Learned Counsel would further submit that the Court may pass appropriate orders. 4. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the petitioner has approached the Court. As directed by the Court, Three Men Committee constituted and they have examined the case of the petitioner and others. According to the said report, the petitioner could not reach the targeted work that is why, the authorities did not choose to extend his contract as Field Assistant. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that the petitioner is not working, no further orders are required in this matter and the petition may be disposed of. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in reply would submit that recording the same, the petition may be disposed of. 6. Considering the submissions made and a fair look at the material placed on record, the petitioner being a Field Assistant as such a mandate is fixed by the authorities. But the record shows that he could not achieve the targets but he could achieve the mandate of 62% against 75% despite the matter is being scrutinized by the three men committee. They have also reported the same. In the light of such report, the District Collector issued the memo dated 20.05.2016. As such, there are no grounds to interfere in the matter. In that view, the petition deserves dismissal. 7. In the result, the petition is dismissed. 4 Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________________ Dr. VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J Date: 03.04.2025 UPS 5 45 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.28880 of 2018 Dated.03.04.2025 UPS