ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6560 of 2009 Between: A.V.S.N. Murthy & others. ..... Petitioners AND Jan Shikshan Sansthan, Opp: Rotary Club Blood Bank, Venkatratnapuram, Kakinada-1, Rep., by its Chairman Sri T. Srinivas Rao & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri C. Niranjan Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri Voosa Raghu This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6560 of 2009 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside orders dated 22.01.2009 and 28.02.2009 issued by respondent No.1. Heard Sri C. Niranjan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Voosa Raghu, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2. The petitioners were engaged under a Central Government scheme on temporary basis by respondent No.1. By the impugned orders, the petitioners’ services were terminated on the following grounds: “1. The institution has not received grants from Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, since 01.04.2007. It is not certain whether and when the institution will be able to receive grants from Government of India. 2. The institution is solely dependent on GOI grant and has no other source of income for carrying out its programmes and activities and for paying staff salaries. 3. The institution is unable to utilize your services since a few months, as per the job profile allotted to you.” Questioning these orders, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though non-availability of funds is shown to be the reason for the petitioners’ termination, respondent No.1 organization is not completely closed and there is a likelihood of respondent No.1 engaging somebody else in place of the petitioners. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel, I am of the view that if the reasons contained in the impugned termination orders are correct, the petitioners cannot claim their continuance in the organization as of right. The petitioners admittedly are not governed by any statutory provisions nor has their tenure been protected by any regulation. However, respondent No.1 cannot ignore the long standing of the petitioners from the year 1995, if it seeks to employ the personnel for the same work as the petitioners were doing till their services were terminated. The writ petition is therefore disposed of with the direction to respondent No.1 to first consider the case of the petitioners, if it proposes to employ any personnel for the same work, which the petitioners were doing till their services were terminated. If the petitioners do not accept the offer of re-employment as and when made by respondent No.1, the latter will then be free to engage third parties. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.8580 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.04.2009 ES