IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24484 of 2001 Date:26.11.2010 Between: B.R.K. Satyanarayana .....Petitioner AND Deputy Commissioner of Endowments, Kakinada and another ....Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24484 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner seeking for issuance of writ or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the order of the 1st respondent passed in Rc.No.A1/24655/2001 dated 15.11.2001 and the consequential order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.62 of 2001 dated 21.11.2001 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice . According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Attender by the Executive Officer of Sri Nagavarapu Buchabbyai Choultry, Rajahmundry vide proceedings in Rc.No.Nil/2001 dated 13.06.2001 and he has been discharging the duties to the satisfaction of his superior officers and his salary was shown in the budge head establishment. The 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 15.11.2001 stating that it was brought to the notice that the then Executive Officer late K. Bhoja Raju made certain appointments basing on the budget sanctioned and observing that mere sanctioning of amount in the budget does not authorise the Executive Officer to make appointments specifically when there is a ban and without taking specific permission from the competent authority and directed the Executive Officer to cancel the irregular appointments made by late K. Bhoja Raju. In pursuance of the said instructions, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order. The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity before terminating his services having utilised the services of the petitioner for six months and therefore, the impugned order dated 21.11.2001 is liable to be set aside. This Court in W.P.M.P.No.30929 of 2001 while granting an interim stay observed that it is open for the 2nd respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner after issuing the notice specifying that the appointment made itself is irregular. Subsequent to the stay granted by this Court, it was made absolute on 26.02.2002. On 23.11.2004, the counsel for the respondents represented before this Court that in pursuance of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.30929 of 2001 dated 28.11.2001, the respondents have already terminated the services of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to produce the proceedings to that effect. But, the counsel for the petitioner has not produced any of such proceedings and he is seeking for a direction to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner’s services by setting aside the impugned order dated 21.11.2001. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.6166 of 2002 in respect of another employee in the same circumstances. In the said order, the learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the impugned order on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice and it is not necessary to go into the substantive grounds for the termination of the services of the petitioner as urged by the respondents. In another similar case, the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22937 of 2002 has allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned order on the principles of natural justice, but however held that this will not preclude the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law. But, the counsel for the petitioner has been insisting for passing of the order in pursuance of the orders passed in W.P.No.6166 of 2002. Even if both the orders are in similar situations as that of the present case of the petitioner and as the petitioner was not given any opportunity before his termination, it is violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, this does not preclude the respondents to give an opportunity to the petitioner and to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD,J November 26, 2010 GK. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.24484 of 2001 Date: 26.11.2010 Gk.