IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8063 of 2008 Between: 1 T.Rajaiah S/o.Ratnaiah Zilla Shaksharata Samithi (ZSS), Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 2 N.Malla Reddy S/o.Pulla Reddy Zilla Shaksharata Samithi (ZSS), Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 3 Khaja Nizamuddin S/o.Jainulladdin Zilla Shaksharata Samithi (ZSS), Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 4 P.Bikshmaiah Sarma S/o.Ramakrishnaiah Zilla Shaksharata Samithi (ZSS), Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 5 K.Mallaiah S/o.Rajaiah Zilla Shaksharata Samithi (ZSS), Nalgonda Nalgonda District. 6 P.Upendar S/o.Papaiah Zilla Shaksharata Samithi (ZSS), Nalgonda Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 Gynanodaya Samithi, Nalgonda rep. by its Chairman and the District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 2 The Secretary, Gynanodaya Samithi, Nalgonda and The Deputy Director, Adult Education, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3 The Director, Adult Education, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 4 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. .....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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners till the absorption of the services either in 1st respondent society or in other Government Departments by declaring the action of the respondents in taking steps to recruit freshers/appointing another set of persons on consolidate basis as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VENKAT RAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.NO.8063 OF 2008 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by six individuals seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to continue them in the service of the first respondent society or in any other Government Departments. They also sought for directions to refrain the respondents from recruiting freshers/appointing another set of persons on consolidated basis, in their places. The petitioners submitted that they have been working for a very long time with the first respondent/society, which has been established for securing 100% literacy. It is their case that with a view to optimize the funds, their services have been since dispensed with. However, since, 100% literacy has not been achieved, the activities of the society are being continued, restricting the expenditure liable to be incurred towards the salary and other establishment charges. Consequently, the services of the writ petitioners have been disengaged. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has however pointed out that in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, the respondents have categorically assured that if the services of any personnel are required, in the event the programme is continued, the petitioners will be given consideration in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and that would be sufficient relief for the writ petitioners. In the counter affidavit, it has been pointed out that the first respondent society has been established for achieving 100% literacy in rural areas and the Government of India schemes for securing the said objective are got implemented through the exigencies of the society. But, however, to ensure that maximum extent of the funds made available are utilized for achieving the objectives of the society, they have restricted the establishment costs including the salary component and hence the society has been directed not to incur a sum of more than Rs.10,000/- towards salaries. Therefore, when review has taken place, the society has realized that the services of the petitioners are not required and hence the excess staff continuing on the rolls of the society have been disengaged and such an action has been perfectly legitimate and justified, inasmuch as the society is intended to utilize its funds for achieving the objective rather than for the benefit of the employees engaged for achieving the said objective. Paragraph 7 of the counter reads as hereunder: “ It is relevant to submit that the petitioners are not regular employees of the society and the question of continuing them in service without work would not arise in the programme. As and when the services are required if the programme is continued depending upon the needs, the total literacy campaign is continued preference will be given for consideration of their claim in accordance with bye laws of the society. As such, no vested rights accrues to the petitioners for continuation”. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel, that if the writ petitioners’ cases are taken up for consideration as and when such a requirement is felt by the society, the ends of justice would be met, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 16th June, 2009 PNV