IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29959 of 2011 Between: Duba Venkata Ramana … Petitioner And District Collector/District Programme Coordinator, NREGS, Srikakulam District and others. … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.29959 of 2011 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the order dated 23.04.2011, issued by the 3rd respondent, as being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, without jurisdiction, contrary to principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the guidelines and provisions of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and the scheme framed there under and consequently set aside the same. The case of the petitioner is that the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is implemented in Srikakulam District as a policy of the Government. The scheme requires the services of Technical Assistants besides the services of Field Assistants etc. After undergoing standard selection process by the 4th respondent, entered into an agreement with the petitioner on 01.04.2008 for a period of two years and as per the said agreement, he as to report to the 5th respondent. Pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner reported to the 5th respondent and worked as a Technical Assistant from 01.04.2008 onwards. While so, the 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 25.10.2010 kept the petitioner out of contract employment and asked him to submit explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 12.11.2010 and thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued order dated 23.04.2011 whereby and whereunder terminated the services of the petitioner. It is also submitted that aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal before the 6th respondent on 03.06.2011 and the same is pending. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without conducting any enquiry into the matter on the ground of alleged misappropriation of funds, the 3rd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 6th respondent and no orders have been passed thereon. Therefore, he sought a direction to the 6th respondent to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the 6th respondent may be directed to consider the appeal dated 03.06.2011, stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the 6th respondent. In that view of the matter, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the 6th respondent is directed to consider the appeal dated 03.06.2011, stated to have been filed before him by the petitioner, and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 09.11.2011 LSK