APHC010061552012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27648/2012 Between: P.jayaprakash ...PETITIONER AND The A P State Housing Corporation Limited and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K MOHAN RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR APSHC) The Court made the following: 2 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 04.08.2011, whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed with, along with 11 other outsourcing work inspectors. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as an Apprentice Trainee for the supervision of construction work in the rural areas of Chitoor District, vide proceedings dated 22.04.2006. The petitioner’s services were continued as an outsourcing work inspector through a consultant till 2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 04.08.2011, directing the 4th respondent to dispense with the petitioner’s services as an outsourcing work inspector. 3. It is submitted that the impugned proceedings would indicate that the petitioner did not perform or meet the targets during May 2011 to July 2011. 4. The respondents, in their, counter submit that the initial engagement of the petitioner, along with other work inspectors was in pursuance of a notification for filling up the post of outsourcing work inspectors. It is also stated in the counter that the post was purely temporarily, for a period of three to four months only, and that the extension would be considered basing on the performance of individuals. It is also submitted that the continuance or discontinuance of any outsourcing work inspector would depend upon the requirement and the decision of the higher authorities. The petitioner cannot file the present writ petition and maintained it on the ground that his services 3 were dispensed with as a matter of Fundamental Right. It is submitted that the petitioner was aware of the nature of his engagement and was also aware of the terms and conditions which would cover the engagement. It is evident that the petitioner was engaged on a temporary basis, and his services were dispensed with when the performance of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory. This Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. 5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 28.01.2025 PNS