Telangana High Court
WP/39078/2013 of Kompelly Narsaiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2013
SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A . SHANKAR NARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.39078 of 2013 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.) 1 Applicants in O.A.No.6273 of 2011 filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad have filed this Writ Petition
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDYANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANAWRIT PETITION No.39078 of 2013
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
(Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.)
1 Applicants in O.A.No.6273 of 2011 filed before theAndhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad havefiled this Writ Petition aggrieved by the order, dated06.12.2013 passed by the Tribunal in the said O.A.
2 Petitioners are appointed as Village Servants ontemporary basis as per the provisions under Rule 6 of A.P.Village Servants Service Rules, 2005. Initially, they wereappointed for a period of six months and when theyrequested to continue them beyond such period, theirrequest was rejected by Memo, dated 01.07.2011 referringto ban orders issued by the Government by virtue ofprovisions under The Andhra Pradesh (Regulation ofAppointments to Public Servants and Rationalisation of StaffPattern and Pay Structure) Act, 1994 (for short “Act 2 of1994”). As against the said order, the petitioners filedO.A.No.6273 of 2011 before the Tribunal, which ended indismissal. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.
3 In this Writ Petition, it is submitted by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that though there is need tocontinue the petitioners in the said posts and in spite of therecommendations made by the Tahasildar, Sircilla, their request was not considered. It is further submitted that banimposed by the Government vide Act 2 of 1994 also will notcome in their way for claiming extension of appointment.
4 It is to be noticed that the petitioners were appointednot by the method known to law. They were appointed ontemporary basis as Village Servants as per the AndhraPradesh Village Servants Service Rules, 2005 for a periodof six months and thereafter, they are being continued. When their appointment was made purely on temporarybasis, they do not have any right to seek for theircontinuance beyond the said period. Whether there is anyneed to continue them or not is a matter to be decided bythe respondents but the petitioners cannot make any claimfor continuance on the ground that there is requirement. Inview of the reasons recorded in the impugned order passedby the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petitionso as to issue any direction to continue the petitioners inservice as Village Servants.
5 Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. However,as it is submitted that the petitioners have made arepresentation, dated 10.12.2013 to the respondentauthorities, it is open for them to consider and dispose of thesame in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As asequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shallstand closed.
_______________________
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
Date: 31.12.2013
Kvsn*
___________________________
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.