Telangana High Court
WP/28065/2009 of D.n.V. Prasada Rao Vs The State of A.P., rep. by its District Collector AND District on 29 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 28065 OF 2009 Between: D.N.V.Prasada Rao ..... PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No. 28065 OF 2009
Between:
D.N.V.Prasada Rao
AND
..... PETITIONER
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its District Collector & DistrictProgramme Co-ordinator, NREGS-AP, East Godavari at Kakinada andothers
.....RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following :
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINIWRIT PETITION NO.28065 OF 2009
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:
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the order dated26.10.2009 passed by the 3[rd] respondent herein thereby terminating theservices of the petitioner as Field Assistant as arbitrary and illegal.
It is primarily contended by the petitioner that the impugned order,which was passed without notice to the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal andviolative of the principles of natural justice.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as thelearned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. As couldbe seen from the material on record, under the impugned order dated26.10.2009 the services of five Field Assistants were terminated andsome of them filed W.P.No.27420 of 2009 challenging the terminationorder on the very same ground that it was in violation of the principlesof natural justice. Having accepted the said contention, this Court whilesetting aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2009 disposed of the WritPetition leaving it open to the respondents to pass appropriate ordersafresh following due process of law. Since the fact that the petitionerherein is also similarly situated is not disputed before this Court, theimpugned order dated 26.10.2009, so far as the petitioner herein isconcerned, is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed ofleaving it open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders afreshfollowing due process of law. No costs.
_____________
G. ROHINI, J.
Dt. 29.12.2009 Ivd