HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 25104 OF 2009 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradeh represented by its Principal Secretary to Government HM&FW Department and four others. ..... PETITIONERS AND K. Rajeswaramma, MPHA (F), Subcentre, Iskala, PHC Pamulapadu, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to orders dated 13.05.2009 passed in O.A.No. 1422 of 2009 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and quash the same as arbitrary. The learned Government Pleader for Services-I submitted that this matter is squarely covered by the judgment-dated 18.1.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos. 23029, 23296, 23297 and 23301 of 2009, wherein this Court at paragraphs 11 and 12 observed as under: “11. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) above clearly refer to civil services or a civil post under the State, which is a sine qua non for approaching the State Administrative Tribunal for reliefs relating to recruitment, matter connecting to recruitment to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State. Rule 9(b) of Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules referred to above clearly excludes a contract appointee from being regarded as a member of the service and thereby a contract appointee cannot be said to hold any post under any service of the State nor he can be said to hold a civil post. Therefore, the applicant could not have approached the tribunal or any relief, as the OA itself is not maintainable for the reasons aforesaid. 12. The said aspect can also be examined from a slightly different angle as well. The relief sought for in the OA is to set aside the order of termination and to continue the applicant with all consequential benefits. In other words, therefore, the relief sought or is to set aside he order terminating the contract. The said contract, admittedly, was for one year and by afflux of time, automatically, the appointment comes to an end on expiry of one year period and as such even without the order of termination, which is impugned herein also, when the contract is not renewed for further period, no legitimate right can be claimed by the applicant to continue in service. The order of termination of the applicant, merely amount to putting an end to the said contract in terms of the contract. The further relief sought for by the applicant relating to the continuation, therefore, amounts to enforcing a contract beyond the period stipulated. The applicant, therefore, was clearly seeking specific performance of a contract apart from the fact that a contract of personal service being not specifically enforceable under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the tribunal had no jurisdiction to compel and force the State to indefinitely extend the contract in favour of the applicant. Thus, even if it is assumed that the OA was maintainable before the tribunal, no relief as sought for could have been granted by the Tribunal. For the aforesaid reasons, W.P.No. 23029 of 2009 deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and OA No. 1366 of 2009 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Since the issue involved in all other writ petitions is identical, W.P.Nos. 23296, 23297 and 23301 of 2009 are also allowed and the corresponding O.A’s stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order a to costs.” Following the above judgment dated 18.1.2010 passed in W.P.Nos. 23029, 23296, 23297 and 23301 of 2009, this Writ Petition viz., W.P.No. 25104 of 2009 is also allowed and O.A.No. 1422 of 2009 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J DATE: 08.06.2010 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.