APHC010817072014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 1154/2014 Between: 1. CH. RAJULAMMA, W/O. Y. DEMUDU BABU, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS 0CC: V R P (UNDER TERMINATION), R/O. DASARAVEEDI, TENUGUPUDI VILLLAGE & POST, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT - 531030. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVT OF A P REP BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKAPATNAM DISTRICT, VISAKAPATNAM. 2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/PROGRAMME, OFFICER, NREGS, DEVARAPALLI MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM 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 to Issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.311/2012 HR Department, dt.20.12.2013 issued by 1st respondent preferred against the proceedings Rc.No.311/2012 HR Department, dt.26.07.2013 issued by 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary violative of Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as 2 Village Resource Person under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to Tenugupudi Gram Panchayat of Devarapalli Mandal; Visakhapatnam District with all consequential and incidental benefits attached to the post and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WVMP 814 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 vacate the interim order dated 22.1.2014 passed in WPMP.No.1322 of 2014 in WP.no.1154 of 2014 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 1321 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 direct the respondents not to make permanent appointments to the post of Village Resource Person of Tenugupudi Gram Panchayat, Devarapalli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2014(WPMP 1322 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 suspend the proceedings issued by 2nd respondent in Rc.No.311/2012 HR Department, dt.26.07.2013 and the consequential appeal proceedings issued by 1st respondent in Rc.No.311/2012 HR Department, dt.20.12.2013 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass IA NO: 7 OF 2014(WPMP 9302 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 IA NO: 8 OF 2014(WPMP 42281 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P V V SATYANARAYANA 3 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 4 Order:- The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 26.07.2013 and 20.12.2013 as illegal and arbitrary. The services of the petitioner were withdrawn with effect from 31.03.2013 vide proceedings dated 26.07.2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority confirmed the order of the 3rd respondent, duly clarifying that the contract period of the petitioner had expired on 31.03.2013. 2. The petitioner was engaged for a specified period as Village Resource Person of Devarapalli Mandal. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 30.01.2013, whereby she was called upon to submit her explanation with regard to not completing 10th class as on the date of appointment. The petitioner submitted her explanation stating that she had acquired the requisite qualification at a later point of time and that the same may be considered. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent did not consider the reply of the petitioner and passed the orders dated 26.07.2013, which were confirmed by the 1st respondent. This Court, while admitting the writ petition, granted interim suspension as prayed for. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondent authority engaged the services of Mr. B. Appa Rao on 09.01.2014 and issued appropriate proceedings to that effect, and it is submitted that she is presently continuing in the said post. It is submitted that the respondents filed the vacate petition and counter on 19.02.2014, bringing 5 to the knowledge of this Court the engagement of another employee in place of the petitioner much prior to the interim directions passed by this Court on 22.01.2014. 4. The learned Standing Counsel also places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in V.S. Chinna vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravati, Guntur District, Rep. by its Registrar (Administration) & another in W.P. No. 20651 of 2024. The Hon’ble Division Bench considered a similar case of a contract employee whose term of engagement had expired and no further extension was granted. In such circumstances, setting aside the termination order does not in any manner assist the petitioner therein. 5. On the facts of the present case, admittedly the term of engagement of the petitioner had expired on 31.03.2013. Aggrieved by such termination, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority, which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents engaged the services of Mr. B. Appa Rao on contract basis, whose term has been extended from time to time. 6. On considering the submissions that the said employee is still continuing as on date, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. As held by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, setting aside the orders of termination after expiry of the contract period of engagement, when there is no extension of the said period, the petitioner 6 would not stand to gain by setting aside the impugned proceedings in any manner. 7. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to interfere. 8. 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 21.01.2026 PNS