IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27178 of 2008 Between: A. Kavitha S/o. Mohan Reddy R/o. Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director, Medak District. 2 The A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Rep. by its Divisional Engineer Electrical (Operation) Siddipet, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to discharge her duties as Computer Operator Contract Semi -Skilled Labour in his office as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to discharge her duties as Computer Operator Semi Skilled Labour in his office. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.R.REDDY KOVVURI Counsel for the Respondents: MR. P.R.BALARAMI REDDY (SC FOR AP TRANSCO) The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.27178 of 2008 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for A.P.C.P.D.C.L. appearing for the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a Computer Operator, Contract Semi Skilled Labour, in the respondent Organization at Siddipet, Medak District, on 01.05.2005, and since then she has been discharging her duties as such. It is her grievance that since 01.04.2008, she has not been permitted to attend the duties without assigning any reason and, on enquiry, she came to know that the 2nd respondent engaged a person of his choice in her place without following the due procedure, which is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Organization, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is not an employee of the respondent Organization, but she worked on contract basis under a contractor, who supplied manpower to the respondent Organization, and that the said contract period is also over and therefore her services cannot be continued. In view of the above submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as sought for in this writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 15th December, 2008 IBL