IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTHEETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 10626 OF 2010 Between: DVL Narasimha Rao, S/o.D.Basava Purnaish ..... Petitioner & 1. The Secretary, Govt.of AP, Revenue Department, Hyderabad & another .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WP NO.10626 of 2010 ORDER : ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed ) This writ petition is filed against the order dated 9-3-2010 passed in OA No.5723 of 2006 by the AP Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. 2. The petitioner herein filed the OA questioning the proceedings No.50414/VO2/96-12, dated 25-7-2006 issued by the Secretary, Government of AP, Revenue Department, Hyderabad-1st respondent herein, whereby the order of the 2nd respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner as VAO, Kadavakuduru Village, Chinnaganjam Mandalam, was confirmed in revision. 3. The facts of the case are prior to the selection of the petitioner as VAO, Kadavakuduru Village, Chinnaganjam Mandalam, he was working as Village Karanam, Nalandalapadu Village for a period of four years. One P. Obaiah filed appeal questioning his appointed as VAO, Kadavakuduru Village, Chinnaganjam Mandalam, on the ground that his appointment is contrary to Rule 9 (b) of APVAOs Service Rules, 1990, as he belongs to other division i.e. Kandukur which is in Ongole Division. The 2nd respondent-District Collector, Prakasam District, having called for a report from the concerned RDO, set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Land and Revenue and the same was also dismissed. The matter was further carried in revision before the Government and the same was dismissed by the order that was impugned in the OA. The Tribunal by the impugned order observed that under Rule 9 (b) of the APVAOs Service Rules, the candidate from the same division has to be appointed as VAO and as the petitioner was not belonging to Chinnaganjam Mandalam, he was terminated from the service and accordingly dismissed the OA. 4. However, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has secured second highest marks in the selection process, we permit the petitioner to make representation to the 2nd respondent for appointment as VAO in his division i.e. Kandukur Village in Ongole Division, provided if there are vacancies and subject to the eligibility of the petitioner, and on such representation being made, the 2nd respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. 5. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions, at the admission stage itself. ______________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J ____________________ G. Bhavani Prasad, J Dated: 30-4-2010 Note: cc in 3 days. (b/o) Nrg.