IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009 W.P.No.18781of 2009 Between: 1. K.Sishna W/o G.Krishna Murthy, and another ….PETITIONERS and 1. The District Collector, Anantapur District (T.W.Wing) and others …RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.18781 of 2009 ORDER:( Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.08.2009 in O.A.No.9850 of 2009 passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. Petitioners herein are the applicants in O.A.No.9850 of 2009 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was filed questioning the order dated 01.08.2009 passed by the District Collector revoking the contractual appointment of the petitioners. The petitioners were appointed on contract basis for a tenure not exceeding two years or the balance period for which relevant post has been created whichever is less. The petitioners were appointed so subject to their agreeing to the terms and conditions of the contract and acceding to the terms and conditions of the contract they have joined on 08.02.2008. According to the 1st condition of the appointment, the appointment of a person on contract basis shall be made under Rule 9 of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (for short – ‘the Rules’), and a person appointed under Rule 9(a) of the Rules such appointment shall not be regarded as a member of the service in which the post to which he/she is appointed. It is also mentioned therein that the department or the person appointed may revoke the contractual appointment, or discontinue the contract by giving one month’s notice in writing on either side. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioners are not the members of service and the department is entitled to revoke or discontinue the contract by giving one month’s notice. The services of the petitioners were terminated only after giving one month’s notice. Questioning the said termination order, the petitioners filed O.A.No.9850 of 2009 before the Tribunal which dismissed the same by order dated 24.08.2009 as not maintainable on the ground that their services are terminated only after giving one month’s notice as required. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into by them and so they cannot be treated as the members of the service. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioners. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J ____________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 08.09.2009 CVRK