THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26147 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3-Devasthanam as a Clerk on consolidated pay in the year 2007. Later, he was extended the benefit of pay scale. Recently, the petitioner pursued the remedies in the context of extension of benefits of 2005 P.R.C. W.P.No.18089 of 2011 filed by the petitioner was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Kakinada, respondent No.2 herein, to examine the matter. Respondent No.2 examined the matter pertaining to the petitioner. He expressed the view that the very entry of the petitioner into the services of respondent No.3 was not proper and that he deserves to be removed from service. Accordingly, he issued proceedings, dated 19.08.2011, to respondent No.3. As a result, respondent No.3 issued a notice, dated 05.09.2011, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why he be not removed from service on the ground that he was not properly selected and appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Endowments for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. There are certain minor errors in the impugned notice. The first is about the date. It appears that instead of typing it as 05.09.2011, the date is mentioned as 05.08.2011. The second is that though what is issued by respondent No.2 is a show cause notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner would be removed from service after one month. This needs to be attributed to the lack of proper acquaintance with the language to be utilized in matters of this nature. The contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 is not competent to issue notice can be pointed out by the petitioner himself. It is mentioned in the impugned notice that it was issued with the approval of the founder family member. Whether or not the notice in the present form can be sustained in law can also be pointed out by the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the show cause notice. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to submit his explanation within two weeks from today. It is specifically directed that respondent No.2 shall examine the matter, taking into account the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:19.09.2011 kdl