IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14278 of 2008 Between: N.Chelama Reddy S/o. Venkataram Reddy R/o. Edutla Village, Gopalpeta Mandal, Mahabubnagar district. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Gopalapeta mandal Prajaparishad at Gopalapeta Village, Mahabubnagar Distrct. 2 The District Collector, Mahabubnagar. .....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 a writ of Mandamus declaring the order dated 30/4/2008 of the 1st respondent in removal of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant of Edutla Village, Gopalpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjustified and unsustainable and set aside the same directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Field Assistant with all consequential benefits and back wages. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.G.ELISHA The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant, Edulta Gram Panchayat, Gopalapeta Mandal, Mahabubnagar District, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme. He was issued a memo, dated 27.02.2008, wherein he was required to explain as to why necessary action shall not be taken, on account of three reasons mentioned therein. The petitioner claims to have submitted his explanation on 29.02.2008. The first respondent passed an order, dated 30.04.2008, directing removal of the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The post of Field Assistant is not part of the civil services of the State. The appointment is on contractual basis and for a limited period. All the same, the Courts insist that before a Field Assistant is removed from the office, he must be put on notice. Obviously, for that reason, the petitioner was issued a notice, dated 27.02.2008, and he submitted his explanation. It is, no doubt, true that in the impugned order, dated 30.04.2008, one more reason, namely the result of social audit, is also mentioned. The fact, however, remains that one of the reasons mentioned in the show cause was treated as the basis for the removal of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any material irregularity in the impugned proceedings. At any rate, the case of the petitioner can be considered, in future as and when selections and appointments take place for similar posts. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned order, but directing that the case of the petitioner shall be considered in future appointments. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ Dt.21.07.2008 L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J GJ