IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 384 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2008 in WP NO : 21117 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V. Gopalam, S/o. Late Sri Perraju, National Institute of Rural, Development (NIRD), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500040 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chairman, Executive Council NIRD and Secretary (Rural Development), Government of India, Krishibhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 2 The Director General, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030 3 The Registrar, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. 4 Col. Babu thomas (Retd), Presently Working as Camp Officer, National Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500 030 .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.L.RAVICHANDER The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 395 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 06/11/2008 in WP NO : 21079 OF 2002 on the file of the High Court.) Between: V. Gopalam, S/o Late Sri Perraju, National Institution of Rural, Development (NIRD), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad-500030 ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chairman, Executive Council NIRD and Secretary (Rural Development), Governemnt of India, Krishibhavan, New Delhi-110001 2 The Director General, National Institution of Rural, Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030 3 Register, National Institution of Rural, Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030 4 Shri P. Pandu Ranga Rao, s/o National institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.L.RAVICHANDER The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari ) These two writ appeals arise out of the common order dated 6.11.2008 in W.P. Nos. 21117 and 21079 of 2002 respectively passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The appellant herein filed the above writ petitions assailing the order appointing fourth respondent in both the writ petitions as Officers on Special Duty and as Camp Officers on temporary basis. It was case of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that during the year 1989, he was functioning as Assistant Registrar in National Institute of Rural Development and the Supervision of Vehicles Deployment, sanitary arrangements and hostel management were under the control of the Assistant Registrar, but due to the appointment of fourth respondent by the second respondent, as Officers on Special Duty, the control of those sections is shifted to such appointed officers. Before the learned Single Judge, it was contended by the respondents that 2nd respondent is competent to appoint the 4th respondent as Officers on special duty in view of exigency of work and in the course of administration. When the writ petitions were taken up by the learned Single Judge for hearing, it was represented by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 that the respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions were not in service. However, the learned Single Judge having regard to the fact that the respondent No.4 in both the writ petitions were appointed purely on contract basis in view of the exigency of work and in the course of administration and that they were no more in service as on the date of disposal of the writ petitions, closed the writ petitions as no further orders were felt necessary to be passed in the writ petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeals are filed by the writ petitioner. The appointment of the respondent No.4 in both the above writ petitions is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that as on the date of the common order passed in the above Writ Petitions i.e. 6.11.2008 by the learned Single Judge, they were not in service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that since no further orders were necessary, the learned Single Judge is right in closing the writ petitions. Consequently, we do not see any merit in these Writ Appeals. Hence, they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari ______________________ Justice Vilas V.Afzulpurkar March 26, 2009 MAS