IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATT- (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR Ri^O WRIT PETITION NO: 61 OF 2013 Between: M Ramalingam, S/o Muni Gandar, aged 35 years, Filed Assistant (Now removed) R/o Veernarriala Village and Gram Panchayat Ramakuppam Mandal Chlttoor District ...Petitioner AND 1. The District Collector, Chittoor District, Chittoor. 2. The Project Director, DWMA Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...Respondents" Petition under Article 22^^ of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No: 2 in not reinstate the petitioner into service and not allowing the petitioner to attend the duties without there being any order of termination as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded violation of principals of natural justice and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential/^ benefits in the interest of justice and pass such other and further order orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. or l-A. NO: 1 OF 2013fWPMP. NO: 64 OF 20131- Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to attend duties by considering his representations forthwith in the interest of justice and pass such other and further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. — Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURA(, DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M S R CHANDRA MURTHY, SPL C FOR NREGS The Court made the following: V. APHC010235322013 r^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 61/2013 Between: M Ramalingam ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector Chittoor District, Chittoor and another ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.CHSRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.SPL 0 FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION N0.61 of 2013 ORDER: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: "...to issue a writ or direction more particularly In the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not reinstate the petitioner into service and not allowing the petitioner to attend the duties without therebeing any order of termination as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be justified In the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner Into service with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice and pass such other and further order orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” or 2. The case of the petitioner is that originally he was appointed Assistant in Veernamala Gram Panchayat, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District vide proceedings in PS/C.No. 10/06, dated 01.06.2006 and ever since he discharged his duties with utmost and caution without therebeing any adverse remarks and any allegations of committing any irregularities or misappropriation . While so, the social audit team conducted the 2'"'^ round of social audit and submitted report showing misappropriation of Rs.8,470/- against the petitioner and recommended for removal from service and issued instructions for recovery. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued 30.03.2010 calling explanation from the petitioner and to remit the amount of misappropriated. After thorough verification of the explanation of the petitioner and records, the 1®^ respondent issued as Field care on r, final proceedings, dated 03.06.2011 to the MPDO Ramakuppam Mandal for recovery of misused Government funds from the FAs committed irregularities in Ramakuppam Mandal in the statement enclosed to the proceedings and ordered the amount to be recovered against alleged misappropriation was not ordered to be recovered against the petitioner is nil. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations to the respondents requesting for his reinstatement into service and the same are pending. The present writ petition is filed the ground that there is no written order issued against the petitioner and orally instructed the petitioner not to attend the duties and even after allegations made against the petitioner are found to be false, the petitioner was not allowed to continue the service. on 3. The 2^'^ respondent filed counter denying all the contentions raised by the petitioner inter alia stating that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2006 on contract basis for a period of one year. The said period was extended from time to time and it will come to end by 31.03.2013. The petitioner did not attend the duties from 30.01.2010 onwards and the respondents have not known the whereabouts of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, a substitute Field Assistant was appointed in order to avoid disruption to prove works to wage workers. The petitioner was voluntarily stayed away from duties from OO**" January 2010 onwards and he should not blame others. It is further stated that as the petitioner has misappropriated 4 Anr the funds, he was stayed away from the duties and the presumption can be drawn to that effect. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 4. The petitioner is appointed on contractual basis not against the sanctioned post and, therefore, he could not have claim his continuation as a matter of right. And his whereabouts is not known from 30-01-2010. To ensure the work was not disturbed, a third person was appointed in his place. The learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. S.N. Goval reported in (2008) 8 see 92 and submits that where the relationship of master and 5. servant is purely contractual, the contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to the bar contained in Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, therefore the relief prayed for in the petition cannot be extended to the petitioner. 6. In Yopesh Mahaian vs. Prof. R.e. Deka, Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences 2018 (3) SCC 218 held that it is settled law that no contract employee has a right to have his or her contract renewed from time to time. That being so, we are in agreement with the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court that the petitioner was unable to show any statutory or other right to have his contract. At best, the petitioner could claim that the concerned authorities should consider extending his contract. We find that in fact 5 *^r-, due consideration was given to this and in spite of a favourable recommendation having been made, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences did not find it appropriate or necessary to continue with his contractual basis. We do not find any arbitrariness in the view taken by the concerned authorities and therefore reject this contention of the petitioner. services on a If the same principle is adopted as held in Yogesh Mahajan the petitioner has no right to seek his contract extended and his whereabouts not known to the employer for three years, prior to filing of the writ petition before the earnest High court of Andhra Pradesh. Hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. No directive be given to the respondents after lapse of 15 years, interference is required. Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed resultantiy dismissed. 7. case, no can Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no 8. order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any. shall stand closed. Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR /uy' //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. OneCCto SRI. CH SRINIVAS, Advocate [OPUq-' 2. Two CCs to GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. One CO to SRI. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY, SPL C FOR NREGS Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies sree t HIGH COURT DATED:04/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.61 of 2013 DISMISSING THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS