APHC010496052014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 16784/2014 Between: 1.KOTERU NARENDRA, ANANTAPUR, S/O.LATE KOTERU OBULESU AGED 33 YEARS OCC: FIELD ASSISTANT (REMOVED) MEDIKURTHI, YALLANURU MANDAL, ANANATAPUR. ...PETITIONER AND 1.PRL SECY DEPT OF RURAL DEV HYD 2 ORS, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT SECRETARIATE, HYDERABAD. 2.THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY ANANATAPUR DISTRICT. UNDER MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME. 3.THE PROGRAMME OFFICER, UNDER MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, YELLANURU MANDAL, ANANTAPUR 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 any writ, order or direction more particularly on in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.05/H.R/F.A/14 dated 6.6.2014 as illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and to consequently set aside the same IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 20845 OF 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 suspend the orders passed by the 2nd respondent in R.C.No.05/H.R/F.A/14 dated 6.6.2014 pending disposal of the writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.M S R CHANDRA MURTHY 2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.16784 OF 2014 ORDER : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the services of the petitioner as Field Assistant were terminated. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner ought to have challenged the order passed by the 2nd respondent before the concerned District Collector. It is further submitted that this Court has dismissed several writ petitions in similar circumstances and that, since the petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Dated 16.03.2026 KGM 3 74 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.16784 OF 2014 Dated 16.03.2026 KGM