1 HN, J W.P.No.9611_2014 APHC010428772014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9611/2014 Between: 1. P. GURAVAIAH, S/O GURAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: ADDL. PROGRAMME OFFICER, RESIDENT OF CHEMURU VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND MEMBER SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SRDS, HUDA COMPLEX, HYDERABAD. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding the action of the 2nd respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner for reappointment / reinstatement as Additional Programme - Officer by his letter No.1097/ SRDS/ PM (HR-II) 2013, dated 31-12-2013 as illegal and unjust and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate him into duty as additional Programme Officer forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 12063 OF 2014 2 HN, J W.P.No.9611_2014 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 reinstate the petitioner as Additional Programme Officer, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M S R CHANDRA MURTHY 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV 3 HN, J W.P.No.9611_2014 ORDER: 1. There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was engaged on a contract basis and, on account of the petitioner absconding from duties, was relieved from his responsibilities. Thereafter, after a lapse of one year, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities requesting to be realloted duties, stating that he was suffering from back pain and was on rest as advised by doctors. The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for re-appointment as it was not feasible for consideration. 3. Considering the submission that the petitioner was appointed on a contract basis, no further orders need to be passed in this present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:03.03.2026 NKA 4 HN, J W.P.No.9611_2014 17 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 9611 of 2014 Date: 03.03.2026 NKA