THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.4499 OF 2005 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in relieving the petitioner from the post of Estate Officer, Pedagantyada Rythu Bazaar on 4.9.2003 without giving any posting as an Estate Officer in any other Rythu Bazaar in Visakhapatnam, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 3. The case of the petitioner as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that he is a Post Graduate with Diploma in Computer Applications and Health and Sanitation and was appointed as Estate Officer for a Rythu Bazar in Visakhapatnam Town, under proceedings in Rc.No.4146/98/CSC-3 dated 5.5.2000, after being interviewed by core committee consisting of District Supply Officer (City), Assistant Director of Horticulture and Assistant Director of Marketing, headed by the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam. He worked as Estate Officer in different Rythu Bazars in Visakhapatnam Town and he claims that though the said Rythu Bazars were in bad condition without minimum facilities, with his efforts, he improved them. While so, when he was working at Pedagantyada Rythu Bazar, on 4.9.2003, a new person approached him and informed that he was posted in his place. Then, he immediately approached the Assistant Director of Horticulture, and there he was informed him to wait for some time and as there was no response, he approached the Joint Collector on 8.9.2003 and gave representations. As there was no action on the part of the respondents, he filed writ petition before this court in W.P.No.15977/2004 and by order dated 22.9.2004, this court directed the Collector to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within four weeks. Pursuant thereto, the Joint Collector communicated the proceedings in D.Ds. No.54/2004/CSC-2 dated 6-11-2004 stating that the representation of the petitioner does not merit for consideration, as he do not possess the technical qualifications as required under G.O.Ms.No.254 Agriculture and Co-op. (Marketing) II Department dated 27.9.2003. The case of the petitioner is that the said G.O. was issued subsequently after he was relieved from service and that his juniors who do not possess the requisite qualifications as per the said G.O. were being continued, but he was relieved from service. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. The respondents filed counter affidavit and the tenor of which is that the petitioner was appointed on purely contractual basis and that his performance is very poor and is detrimental to the interest of rythu bazar and hence his case was not considered and further as per G.O.Ms.No.254, only the cases of candidates who were possessing required qualification and experience, are being considered. With these averments, inter alia, the writ petition was sought to be dismissed. 5. From the material on record, there is no dispute that the petitioner was working as Estate Officer at Pedagantyada Rythu Bazar before he was relieved on 4.9.2003. Further, the G.O.Ms.No.254 was issued subsequent to the relieving of the petitioner on 4.9.2003 and as per the said G.O., the qualification required is graduation in Agriculture/Horticulture and the said qualifications is only preferably and not mandatory. Further, the petitioner in the writ petition has mentioned names of following persons: 1. Sri Vasudeva Rao M.V.P. 2. Govinda Rajulu Sithammadara 3. Srinivasa Rao Pedawaltair 4. Sridevi Akkayapalem 5. Unnisa Begum Kancharapalem 6. Githa Gopalapatnam 7. Satya Rao Pendurti 8. Ramachari Pedagantyada 6. The case of the petitioner is that the above said persons who are his juniors and who do not possesses requisite qualifications as per G.O.Ms.No.254, were being continued as Estate Officers in different rythu Bazars, but his is relieved from service. His grievance is that the rule ‘last come – first go’ is violated. In the counter filed by the respondents, there is denial of these averments of the petitioner. Further, these circumstances were not considered before passing the impugned order rejecting the case of the petitioner. 7. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Joint Collector in D.Dis.No.54/2004/CSC-2 dated 6.1.2004 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Estate Officer, in Visakhapatnam, afresh, in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. AVS --------------------------- ------- 20—01— 2011