THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY W.P.No.4115 of 2010 ORDER The petitioner was appointed as Program Officer under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. He was served with a show cause notice on 16.07.2009 alleging certain acts of irregularities and misconduct. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 20.07.2009. Taking the same into account, the Project Director passed an order removing the petitioner from service through order, dated 04.08.2009. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P.No.22694 of 2009 before this Court. The petition was disposed of on 05.12.2009, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal before the District Collector. In compliance with the same, the District Collector passed an order, dated 06.02.2010, rejecting the appeal. Hence, the writ petition. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development. In the show cause notice, certain defects were pointed out as to the functioning of the petitioner. The detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner was considered by the Project Director i.e., the first respondent, and the order of removal was passed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. The petitioner is not able to point out any lack of jurisdiction on the part of the respondents in passing the impugned orders. Further, the post of Program Officer is not a regular civil post. The petitioner was appointed purely on contractual basis. The nature of protection to be given to employees of this nature would substantially be different from the one that is applicable to regular employees. This is not a case where the petitioner was straightaway terminated from service. A show cause notice was given and the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation. The appointing authority as well as the appellate authority have considered the same and found that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:01.12.2010 sj