APHC010739632013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 4283/2013 Between: 1. B.NABI RASOOL, S/O ABDUL SAB,, OCC: FIELD ASSISTANT, NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (NREGS), BANVASI GRAM PANCHYAT, YEMMIGANUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL, EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (NREGS), ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT PROGRAMME COORDINATOR, KUMOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY DWMA, REP. BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR/ADDL.DPC, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/ PROGRAMME OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME (NREGS), YEMMIGANUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 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 to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner by Proceedings Rc.No 189/DVO/2012 dated 26-11-2012 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the proceedings Rc.No 189/DV0/2012 dated 26-11-2012 issued by the 3rd respondent IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 5349 OF 2013 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 Proceedings Rc. No. 189/DVO/2012 dated 26-11-2012 issued by the 3rd Respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. L V S NAGARAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 Order:- There is no representation for the petitioner. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the order of termination dated 26.11.2012 would have to be challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority, i.e., the District Collector of the concerned district. 3. This Court has considered several writ petitions in which the petitioners challenged the order of termination without approaching the District Collector. This Court has dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners ought to have invoked the available remedy instead of filing writ petitions. 4. On these considerations and following the earlier orders passed by this Court, the impugned proceedings would have to be challenged before the appellate authority as per the statute. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 09.02.2026 PNS 4