IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27568 of 2008 Between: K. Purnima, D/o. K.V. Soma Brahmam, R/o. Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society (Regd) rep by its Secretary, Gagan Vihar, III rd Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda District. 3 The Rajiv Vidya Mission (SSA), Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. Rep by its Project Officer .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in not implementing the order of the 3rd respondent i.e. Project Officer dt. 04-9-2008 vide proceedings No. Special/E/R.V.M./Nalgonad, as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as T.G.T.C.R.T. (Science) K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram, Nalgonda District, in the 2nd respondent School by renewing with all other benefits, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.BUCHI BABU Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Ms. A. Purnima questioning the action of the second respondent-the Special Officer, K.G.B. Vidyalaya, in not implementing the order of the third respondent-the Project Officer, Rajiv Vidya Mission (S.S.A) dated 4.09.2008. The petitioner was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 16.05.2005 on contract basis. She remained absent from 26.10.2007 to 27.07.2008. Subsequently, she made an application to the respondents to permit her to join duty. The third respondent issued proceedings dated 4.09.2008 directing the Special Officer K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Bommalaramaram-second respondent to take the petitioner into service. Since the second respondent did not take her into service, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri K. Durga Prasad, learned Standing Counsel of A.P. Residential Educational Institutions Society received notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner failed to attend the duty because of her ill health and after recovery, she submitted a representation to permit her to join duty. Thereupon the third respondent directed the second respondent to take her into service, but the second respondent did not respond for the same. It is stated that the post in the second respondent school is still vacant. Indisputably, the appointment of the petitioner is on contract basis for a specific period, and she remained absent. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, reported that, as on this day there is no vacancy in the second respondent school to accommodate the petitioner and by termination of contract, she has no vested right to seek reappointment. In order to obtain a writ or order, in the nature of ‘Mandamus’, the applicant must satisfy the following conditions. 1) The applicant must show that she has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty (as distinguished from discretion) by the party against whom the Mandamus is sought, and right must be subsisting in the date of petition. 2) The duty that may be enjoined by the ‘Mandamus” may be imposed by the constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law. The petitioner was engaged for a specified period and during that period she remained absent. As on this day, there is no post vacant to accommodate the petitioner. In that view of the matter, I find that the petitioner failed to make any valid ground for issue of writ of Mandamus as sought for by her. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 21st January, 2009 Js.