IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO : 3949 of 2009 Between: M.Rajagopal Naidu, S/o. Late Akku Naidu, Quality Contorl, Division-II, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Govenment of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 G.Naga Mohan, Exicutive Engineer, Public Health, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Memo.No.14486/C/2008-1, dated 29-1-2009 issued by the 1st respondent, which was confirmed in O.A.No.1763 of 2009 dated 18-2-2009 on the file of the Hon'ble A.P.Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, and the consequential Proceedings No.492/ENC/E3/GHMC/2009-214, dated 19-2-2009 of the 2nd respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, by holding that the petitioner is entitled to be continued at Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation till the end of his tenure i.e., upto 14-4-2009, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.T.SURYA KARAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 18.2.2009 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No. 1763 of 2009. O.A.No. 1763 of 2009 was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to set aside the impugned memo dated 29.1.2009 issued by the first respondent as illegal by holding that G.O.Ms.No. 610 is not applicable to the post of Executive Engineer in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant is working as Deputy Executive Engineer since March 1999 in Zone-I and is eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. But in view of seniority dispute, he was made incharge Executive Engineer with effect from 3.4.2004 and was discharging the duties in that capacity. He was taken on deputation to GHMC as incharge Executive Engineer with effect from 15.4.2008 and since then he has been discharging the duties with utmost satisfaction of the authorities. The post of Executive Engineer is a non- zonal post under the grab of G.O.Ms.No. 610. But the said G.O has no application to the post of Executive Engineers, which is a state post. It is further submitted that the applicant will be put to prejudice and irreparable loss by virtue of repatriation since his children are studying in Hyderabad. The Tribunal after going into the entire material on record held that there are no grounds to quash the impugned proceedings dated 29.1.2009 issued by the first respondent and accordingly dismissed the O.A. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is working as Deputy Executive Engineer since March 1999 and is eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. He further contended that the post of Executive Engineer is a non-zonal post. Under the grab of G.O.Ms.No. 610 the present impugned proceedings dated 29.1.2009 were passed, which is contrary to the Rules and the presidential order is not applicable to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. He further contended that the petitioner was taken on deputation to GHMC as incharge Executive Engineer with effect from 15.4.2008, whereas the impugned order was passed on 29.1.2009 abruptly without completing his period of one year on deputation. His term of deputation completes on 14.4.2009. He further submits that the authorities have to make incharge arrangement and some other person has to be posted in his place as incharge, and therefore, he requests that he may be continued as incharge Executive Engineer till the end of his tenure i.e. till 14.4.2009. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. It is the settled preposition of law that the deputationist has not right to claim as a matter of right to retain him as long as the period of deputation is completed. It is always open to the authorities to call back his term of deputation if exigency arises or warrants. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity or illegality warranting our interference under certiorari jurisdiction. The Writ Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, this order does not preclude the authorities from considering the representation made by the petitioner to continue him till 14.4.2009, since his children are studying in Hyderabad, uninfluenced by the dismissal of this Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ SANJAY KUMAR , J Dt. 27.02.2009 KA Note: Furnish copy in two days. ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Govenment of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Prl. Secretary Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner & Special Officer, Greater, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 G.Naga Mohan, Executive Engineer, Public Health, Hindupur, Ananthapur District. 5 2 CCs to G.P.for Services-1, High Court of A.P. Buildings, Hyderabad OUT 6. 2 CD copies