IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13123 of 2008 Between: J. Esther Rani D/o J. Nageswar Rao 1-1-417 Shanthi Nagar, 4th Road Extension, Anantapur. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, APREI Society (REGD) Gagan Vihar, IIIrd Floor, nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, KGB Vidyalaya, Singanamala, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not permitting the petitioner to attend the classes in the above School as illegal, arbitrary, discrimination and against law and to direct the respondents to join the petitioner by granting permission with continuity of service and all other benefits and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.INENIVENKATA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.DURGA PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13123 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Teacher, on contract basis, by the first respondent-society on 06.10.2005. 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 on 06.10.2005. 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. ___________ 18.07.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13123 of 2008 Dated: 18.07.2008 JSU