THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 15661 of 2001. ORDER: The petitioner, who was a voluntary worker under a scheme of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, seeks a writ of mandamus that her case should be considered for appointment in the existing or future vacancies of LDCs/LD Typists/Record Assistants or in any other post to which she is eligible, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 27 Municipal Administration and Urban Development (Q) Department dt. 16.1.1991. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that while she was working as a voluntary Balwadi teacher from 1.8.1984, she was interviewed in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 27 dt. 16.1.1991 and she faired well in the interview and thereafter she says that she did not attend to work from 1.2.1992 to 1.6.1992 on account of the death of her son and also due to her ill-health and that when she went to joint duty in June 1992, she was not allowed to join duty and thereafter she made a representation and filed W.P.No. 26936 of 1995 complaining that her oral termination is invalid in law. Reliance is placed on G.O.Ms.No. 27 dt. 16.1.1991 referred to above. This Court by an order dt. 23.6.1998 disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to implement G.O.Ms.No. 27 dt. 16.1.1991 and consider to appoint her as Balwadi teacher by giving seniority and other benefits except arrears of pay. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.C.No. 2108 of 1999 complaining of non- implementation of the order of this Court in W.P.No.26936 of 1995. The respondents filed a counter therein stating that the Corporation has considered all the cases of voluntary workers whenever vacancies arose and some of the candidates were also absorbed. However, the petitioner’s case could not be considered as she was not available and she had left the post unauthorizedly from 1992 onwards. It was also stated that the Commissioner had considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions of this Court and passed an order dt. 30.4.1999. It was further stated that post of Balwadi Teacher is not a regular post in Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In view of the said counter, the contempt case was closed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the order of Commissioner dt. 30.4.1999. In this writ petition also, a counter affidavit is filed by the respondents reiterating the aforesaid stand stating that the petitioner discontinued the work and she was not in service at the time of considering the cases of other candidates in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 27 dt. 16.1.1991. It is also stated that the petitioner remained absent from duty without prior intimation with effect from 1.2.1992. It is admitted that the order dt. 30.4.1999 passed by the Commissioner was not communicated to the petitioner as the entire file was not traceable after it was submitted to the High Court for consideration in the aforesaid contempt case on 7.12.2000 and for misplacement of the said record, disciplinary proceeding were initiated against the concerned staff and the Officer responsible has already been punished under the disciplinary rules. It is asserted that the said order dt. 30.4.1999 was produced before this Court in the contempt case and the contempt case was closed. The learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated his contention that the order dt. 30.4.1999 was not communicated to the petitioner. The absence of the petitioner for a long period and that she was not available at the time of consideration of the cases of other volunteers as stated in the counter, is not controverted. The petitioner admittedly was a volunteer and was not holding any post in the Municipal Corporation cadre. Since the petitioner is seeking appointment in Municipal Service, the appropriate forum to agitate the dispute would be A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. However, as this aspect was not raised earlier, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner has no legal right to seek a mandamus as she was only a voluntary worker and her case was duly considered by the Corporation, a mandamus cannot be issued. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J 25.11.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No. 15661 of 2001. ORDER: Dt. 25.11.2010.