IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 2099 of 2008 Between: P.Prasada Rao S/o. Sudhakara Rao R/o. D.No.26/1/714 C/o.D.Ramana Reddy House, B.V.Nagar, Nellore-4 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner of Youth Services and managing Director, AP Society for Training & Employment Promotion 5-4-203, Behind Boats Club, Adajcent to Youth Hostel Secunderabad. 2 District Youth Welfare officer and Ex-Officio Chief Executive officer, SETNEL, Nellore. 3 The Manager, District Youth Welfare office, Nellore. .....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 an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents to consider and pass orders on my representation dated 11.1.2007, 11.6.2007 and 30.9.2007 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14& 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SUBRAHMANYAM Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR EMPLOYMENT & TRAINING The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner was employed as a Watchman in the year 1990 by the Chairman of the Society for Training and Employment Promotion, Guntur. Subsequently, he was transferred to the unit at Nellore, on his request in the year 1993 and ever since then, he is working in the office of the District Youth Welfare Officer, Nellore. He was assigned the duties of Attender vide memo, dated 10.04.2000. In the recent past, i.e. in January 2007, the petitioner was assigned the duties of Night Watchman. He made representations to the first respondent, the Chief Controlling Authority, on 11.01.2007 and 11.06.2007, expressing his grievances in the matter of functioning as a Night Watchman, particularly on health ground. The first respondent, in turn, called for remarks from the office of the second respondent. So far, no action has been taken. The petitioner submits that he is put to hardship on account of the inaction on the part of the second respondent and seeks appropriate directions in this regard. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Employment and Training. The circumstances under which the petitioner came to be posted as Night Watchman are not before this Court. On representations made by the petitioner, the first respondent has called for remarks. The controversy is in a very narrow compass and does not need interpretation of any provision of law or circulars. It involves examination of the hardship being faced by the petitioner in working as Night Watchman. Such a small matter should not wait for so long a time. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations, dated 11.01.2007 and 11.06.2007, made by the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 13.03.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}