IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2006 of 2009 Between: Maiasiah (Maison) S/o.Late S.Muniswamy The Chittoor Co-operative Sugars Ltd., Chittoor R/o.Q.No.21- 700,CCS Colony, Doddipalli, Chittoor, Chittoor District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Commissioner and Director of Sugars and Cane Commissioner H.No.5-10-174, Shakkar Bhavan, Fathemaidan Road Hyderabad 2 The District Collector, Cum Chairman, The Chittoor Cooperativ Sugars Ltd., Chittoor, Chittoor district 3 The Chittoor Cooperative Sugars Ltd., rep.by its Managing Director, Chittoor, Chittoor District .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.T.C.KRISHNAN Counsel for respondent No.1:AGP FOR INDUSTRIES Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3:MR.T.BALAJI The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not considering the petitioner’s representation, dated 03.10.2008 to handover charge of Security Officer of respondent No.3 society as illegal and arbitrary. Heard Sri T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries for respondent No.1 and Sri T.Balaji, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that having been appointed as in-charge Security Officer temporarily by proceedings, dated 28.12.2002 and continued in proceedings, dated 21.12.2006 issued by respondents 2 and 3 respectively, he is unduly denied the said post after he applied for three days’ leave and rejoined the duty. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Office Manager, in-charge of respondent No.3, it is inter alia stated that the original post of the petitioner was only Watchman and that he was placed in-charge to the posts of Jamedar and Security Officer and, therefore, he has no right to claim either of the said two posts. It is further stated that in Cooperative Sugar Factories, the Government issued a ban on recruitment since they are running on losses. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that his client was entrusted with the duties of Jamedar and Security Officer purely as a part of in-charge arrangements. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to claim either of the said two posts, as his substantive post was only Watchman. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.2526 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 31st MARCH, 2009. kvni