IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 27011 of 2008 Between: Kollati Veera Raju S/o. K. Pattabhi Ramaiah R/o.6-3-16/3, Gandhinagar, 7th Ward, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, Kakinada, East Godavari District. 2 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 3 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ of Certiorari setting aside the judgment dated 28.02.2007 in O.A.NO.5073/2006 of A.P. Administrative Tribunal calling for the records after declaring the action of the respondent in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as illegal and unconstitutional and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.S.MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO. 27011 OF 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 28-2-2007 passed in O.A.No.5073 of 2006 on the file of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal by virtue of which the Tribunal held that cancellation of appointment of the petitioner cannot be said to be bad under law. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner worked as Night Watchman on daily wage basis in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Allavaram on different spells i.e. from 7-8-1985 to 9-11-1988. He also worked as Additional Village Servant of Samanthakuru village from 30-6- 1991 to 1-9-1991 and from 1-4-1992 to 30-6-1992 in Yentrukona village land also at Bheemanapally village of Uppalagupatnam Mandal for a period of one year. His name finds place in the list maintained by the R.D.O. Amalapuram for appointment as Village Servant/Night Watchman. But, his name was not considered. So, he filed O.A.NO.1347/2005 to consider his representation dated 28-12-2004. The said O.A. was disposed of on 28-3-2005 directing the respondents to examine the representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks. As the said order was not implemented, the petitioner filed C.A.No. 975 of 2005. Notice was issued on that application. 3rd Respondent issued orders appointing the petitioner as Village Servant of D. Ravulapalem village of Allavaram Mandal vide proceedings Rc.NO. 489/2005, dated 15-12-2005. He reported to duty on 19-12-2005. But, his salaries were not paid. So, he made a representation to the Collector, East Godavari District and Revenue Divisional Officer, Amalapuram, on 17-4-2006, about payment of the salary. Instead of paying the salary to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner without any valid reason and notice. 3. 2nd Respondent filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the petitioner was appointed as Village Servant on temporary basis for six months. The Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Kakinada did not honour the bill for payment of honorarium on the ground that the appointment of Village Servants was banned by the Government. Thereupon, the Collector was addressed for instructions. Then, it has come to light that there is a ban to appoint the Villager Servants in view of the A.P. Act, NO.2 of 1994. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a copy purported to be the Government Memo No. 95491/Cong/96, dated 31-1- 1996 before the R.D.O. Amalapuram, where under the Government purported to have directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Amalapuram to appoint the petitioner as Messenger/Watchman in the office of M.R.O. Amalapuram East Godavari District. On suspicion, the genuineness of this Memo was verified and it was found to be bogus. Be that as it may, in view of the ban on the appointments of Village Servants and in pursuance of the instructions of the Collector, East Godavari District, the appointment order of the petitioner was cancelled. 4. The Tribunal after considering the matter at length and after quoting Section 4 of the A.P. Act No. 2/94 and also considering the judgment in a case of Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel[1] wherein it has held that executive instructions stand on lower footing than a statutory rule for they do not have the force of a statutory rule, proceeded to dismiss the O.A. The Apex Court in this cited case held that any clarification issued by the Government, if it is contra to the statutory rules or provisions, they have no force of law and those instructions cannot bind the Courts for interpreting the statutory Provisions or Rules. 5. We have perused the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner was appointed on temporary basis, he may be considered for appointment on regular basis. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader contended that the petitioner has filed bogus certificate by virtue of it no equities should be shown to the petitioner. Since, he has filed the bogus memo. 7. Daily wage employee is defined in Section 2(ii) of A.P.Act reads as follows: “ Daily Wage Employee” means any person who is employed in any public service on the basis of payment of daily wages and includes a person employed on the basis of nominal muster roll or consolidated pay either on full time or part-time or piece rate basis or as a work, charged employee and any other similar category of employees by whatever designation called other than those who are selected and appointed in a sanctioned post in accordance with the relevant rules on a regular basis”. 8. The appointment of the petitioner on the daily wages was for six months only and six months have already been elapsed and the temporary appointment will not confer any right on the petitioner that he would be reappointed on regular basis. 9. We do not find any infirmity in the order impugned in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed _____________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 11th December, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.NO. 27011 OF 2008 11th December, 2008. [1] (1985) 3 SCC 398