IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 18371 of 1999 Between: Bediya Anantha, S/o. Late Narayana. R/o. Srikakulam. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Manager, (H), Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Srikakulam. 2 The Assistant Engineer, The Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Ponduru, Srikakulam District. 3 The Deputy Executive Engineer, Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Srikakulam. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction calling for the records relating to the issuance of the proceedings dated 22/07/1999 of the 1st respondent in so far as it relates to the petitioner and set aside the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.V.K.VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondents: MR.V.CH.NAIDU The Court made the following ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was initially appointed on temporary basis as a Godown Watchman, has challenged the order, dated 22.07.1999, passed by the first respondent-District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation Limited, Srikakulam, by which, his services were discontinued. The petitioner was initially appointed through proceedings No.117/90/C/HC, dated 05.03.1990, as a Godown Watchman in the first respondent Corporation on daily wages of Rs.15.50 ps. per day, purely on temporary basis. In the aforesaid order, it is also stated that the services of the petitioner are liable to be terminated at any time without issuing any notice. The impugned order is mainly questioned on the ground that inasmuch as some misconduct was alleged against some other Officers, while dealing with them, the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated. It is submitted by Sri M.V.K.Viswanadham, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order impugned casts a stigma and that the first respondent could not have discontinued the services of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry. The said submission of the learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that in so far as the petitioner is concerned, no misconduct is alleged and the petitioner was appointed on a daily wage basis, without following due process of law. Further, merely there was correspondence to regularize the services of the petitioner and therefore, he cannot acquire any right to continue in service. Inasmuch as the petitioner is not appointed by following due procedure contemplated under law for making appointments to the public service and in absence of any misconduct alleged, so far as the petitioner is concerned, it cannot be said that to terminate the service of the petitioner, who was working as a temporary employee, an enquiry is necessary. Further, the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1999 and he is not in service since then. In that view of the matter, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the orders, dated 22.07.1999, passed by the first respondent. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY,J) Dt:20.01.2009 kdl