IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18319 of 2008 Between: Ch.Bhagyamma D/o.Omkaram R/o.Nampally, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Residential Educational Institutions Society (REGD), Gagan Vihar IIIrd Floor, Nampally, Hyderabad. 2 The Special Officer, K.G.B. Vidyalaya, Nampally, Nalgonda 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not continuing the petitioner in service as T.G.T.C.R.T. (Social) K.G.B. V Nampally, Nalgonda District, as appointed by the petitioner vide proceedings Rc.No.9566/A2-2/2005, dt. 08.09.2005 even after submission of medical certificate dt. 19.05.2006 and representations dt. 6.1.2007, 4.2.2008, and 28.7.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as T.G.T.C.R.T. (Social) K.G.B. V Nampally, Nalgonda District in the 2nd respondent School by renewing with all other benefits, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.BUCHI BABU 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 : 18319 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was engaged as a Teacher on contract basis by the first respondent-society vide orders, dated 08.09.2005. 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 on account of the continued ill-health, she remained absent from 11.05.2006 and reported to duty in January 2007, and the respondents did not take her into service, in spite of repeated representations. She also 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 vide proceedings, dated 08.09.2005. 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 from May 2006 onwards. Totally, different considerations would have arisen, had the petitioner been in continuous service. Be that as it may, in case the post 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. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:22.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18319 of 2008 Date: 22.08.2008 JSU