IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1776 of 2008 Between: Smt.A.Pushpavathy, d/o Venkata Ramana, D.No.12/2/927, 2nd Cross, Sai Nagar, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions, Society (REGD.) Gagan Vihar, IIIrd Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Special officer, K.G.B.Vidyalaya, Singanamala, Anantapur 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 will be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction, more particularly onein the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not renewing the service as TGT-S Studies in the respondents school as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and against law and to direct the respondent to continue the petitioner as TGT-S by renewing with all other benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.INENIVENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Teacher on contract basis by the first respondent-society vide orders, dated 22.08.2005. The original contract was for a period of one year, but the candidates were being continued even after the expiry of the contract period. The petitioner states that though the post against which she was appointed is vacant, she is not being engaged on contract basis. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. It is true that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis vide proceedings, dated 22.08.2005. It is also admitted that the respondents are continuing the candidates even after the expiry of the contract, provided they were in continuous service. It is represented that the petitioner remained absent almost for a period of one year. Totally, different considerations would have arisen, had the petitioner been in continuous service. Be that as it may, in case the vacancy against which the petitioner was engaged in the year 2005 is still vacant, the case of the petitioner shall be considered, as and when the respondents take up the steps to fill it. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:27.06.2008 kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RS}