IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 11724 of 2008 Between: Dr. T. Subba Reddy S/o. Subba Reddy, Hindu R/o. H.No. 2-2-1075/25, Tilak Nagar, New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Aids Control Society, Rep. by its Project Director, Director of Medical & Health Services Campus Sultan Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad. 2 U. Ramakrishna S/o. Not known to petitioner, HIV TB Consultant on Deputation, GFATM-R-III, A.P. State Aids Control Society, Hyderabad. .....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 1st Respondent in terminating the service of the petitioner as HIV TB Consultant under the project in his proceedings No. 3337/AIDS/2007 dt. 3-12-2007 as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, discriminative on extraneous grounds and against Article 16 of the Constitution of India and also against the interest of project and consequently set aside the proceedings No. 3337/AIDS/2007 dt. 3- 12-2007 issued by the 1st respondent with further direction to continue the petitioner as HIV TB Consultant and to terminate the services of the 2nd Respondent as HIV TB Consultant by calling for the appointment order of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.L.J.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as HIV-TB Consultant, by the first respondent, on contractual basis, for a period of two years, with effect from 05.12.2005. His remuneration was fixed as Rs.30,000/- per month. It is stated that the amount has subsequently been enhanced. Vide proceedings, dated 03.12.2007, the first respondent informed the petitioner that his term of appointment had expired and that he would be relieved from duty with effect from 04.12.2007. Subsequently, the first respondent availed the services of the second respondent, a Deputy Civil Surgeon in the Government Service, on deputation basis. The petitioner challenges the action of the first respondent in not renewing his contract. He contends that his performance was appreciated and found to be satisfactory during the tenure of two years and only with a view to discontinue the petitioner, the first respondent has resorted to the devise of availing the services of the second respondent on deputation. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Medical and Health. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a Consultant, purely on contractual basis. The tenure of the contract was two years and the petitioner was continued for the whole of the tenure. The petitioner could have genuine grievance, had it been a case where the first respondent made contractual appointment for the subsequent term and if the case of the petitioner was not considered. For one reason or the other, the first respondent has thought it fit to avail the services of a Government Servant on deputation than to engage persons on contractual basis. Unless, the decision by the first respondent is assailed on any valid legal ground or mala fides are attributed, this Court cannot sit in judgment on the propriety of the policy decision taken by the first respondent. The petitioner does not have any vested right to be continued as a Consultant. This much, however, can be said that in case the first respondent resorts to appoint Consultant on contractual basis, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that as and when the first respondent engages the services of a Consultant on HIV-TB on contractual basis, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered and his past experience shall be taken into account. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:10.06.2008. kdl