THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO. 26900 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings in Rc.No.86/Lok Sikha/2010/1, dated 14-10-2010 issued by the 1st respondent setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as Mandal Co-ordinator, Kadiri Mandal and consequently appointing the 3rd respondent as illegal and consequently set aside the same. 2. In pursuance of the notification issued to fill up the posts of Mandal Co-ordinator and Village Co-ordinators for Sakshar Bharat Mission-2012, the petitioner applied for the same and thereafter, he was appointed as Mandal Co-ordinator, which is on temporary basis for a period of three months and thereafter it shall be extended till the completion of Sakshar Bharath Programme. An amount of Rs.6,000/- is payable to be as honorarium apart from payment of Rs.500/- towards fixed traveling allowance. The 3rd respondent requested the 1st respondent to appoint him as Mandal Co-ordinate making allegations against the petitioner. Thereafter, 1st respondent directed the 2nd respondent to conduct enquiry and basing on the report of the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent set aside the appointment of the petitioner and directed 2nd respondent to issue appointment orders in favour of 3rd respondent. No notice was issued to the petitioner before conducting enquiry and passing impugned order. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the selection process, the petitioner was recommended for appointment by the selection committee and he was given appointment and assumed charge, that thereafter it seems 2nd respondent has given a report to the 1st respondent-District Collector and basing on the report, the 1st respondent set aside the appointment of the petitioner without giving any notice to him and hence, he prays to set aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that appropriate decision has to be taken by the 1st respondent-District Collector in this matter after giving due opportunity to both parties so that the matter may be settled once for all. 5. On the ground that the petitioner has not fulfilled requisite qualifications for the post notified, his appointment was set aside. Admittedly no notice was given before cancelling the appointment. When the petitioner already assumed charge of the post and in such circumstances, principles of natural justice require that he should be heard, but such procedure has not been followed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order. However, the matter is remitted to the 1st respondent with a direction to take appropriate decision within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as 3rd respondent. Before taking decision, the 1st respondent is directed to forward a copy of the report to the petitioner so that he can file his objections. Till such a decision is taken by the 1st respondent, it is made clear that the petitioner shall continue in the post. No order as to costs. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 23-06-2011 Hsd Note: Issue copy in one week