HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23336 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Mandal Coordinator for the Dindi Mandal, Nalgonda District, under the Sakshara Bharathi Scheme through proceedings, dated 09-08-2010, by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the 3rd respondent herein. The 4th respondent was another candidate for the same post. He appears to have made representations to various authorities alleging that the petitioner was not qualified. The Chairman, the District Lok Shiksha Samithi, Nalgonda, and the local MLA appear to have issued instructions to the 3rd respondent to review the matter. Based upon the same, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings, dated 16-09-2010, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and appointing the 4th respondent as Mandal Coordinator in his place. The same is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The petitioner contends that the 3rd respondent passed the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice and surrendered his discretion to the directions issued by the superior authorities. 3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that the appointment of the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of G.O.Ms. No.203, dated 13-04-2010, and that the same is taken into account by the concerned authorities. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 3, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent. 5. The appointment of the petitioner as Mandal Coordinator is on 09-08-2010. Hardly within one month, the impugned order was issued canceling his appointment. In case, the 4th respondent felt aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, he ought to have filed an appeal before the competent authority or approached any court of law. In case, the appellate authority received any representation or appeal from the 4th respondent, the minimum requirement was that the petitioner ought to have been put on notice. No such steps were taken. The appointing authority has himself cancelled the order of appointment of the petitioner. The impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, apart from suffering from other illegalities. 6. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the 4th respondent to assail the order of appointment of the petitioner before the appellate authority, duly impleading the petitioner herein as party. The appellate authority shall issue notice to the petitioner before any final decision is taken. The appeal, if any, filed shall be disposed of within a period of two months from the date of its presentation. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J October 13, 2011. KTL