U.Pulla Rao v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh.

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI WRIT PETITION No.2476 of 2018 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) Vide the present petition, petitioner challenged the order dated 23.06.2017 passed in O.A.No.1928 of 2014 by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, whereby his application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for setting aside the endorsement dated 25.03.2013 of respondent No.4 rejecting his claim to be appointed as Village Revenue Assistant, Gollavilli Village, Uppalaguptam Mandal, was dismissed. Petitioner claims to have worked as Additional Village Servant of Gollavilli Village from 01.02.1995 to 31.07.1995 on a remuneration of Rs.530/- p.m. and, again, in the year 2006 on a remuneration of Rs.500/- p.m. and, therefore, made a white paper application for being appointed as a Village Revenue Assistant of Gollavilli Village.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.P.7, dated 29.06.2013, wherein Sri Kotum Venkateswara Rao was appointed as Village Revenue Assistant in Gollavilli Village, Mandal, as against clear vacancy, and subject to outcome of final orders in O.A.No.571 of 2013. He contends that petitioner initially worked from 01.02.1995 to 31.07.1995 on a remuneration of Rs.530/- p.m, and, again, he discharged

his duties for three years from 28.01.2006, during which period no remuneration was paid.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents before the Tribunal, it is specifically stated that the petitioner worked as Additional Village Servant of Gollavilli Village from 01.02.1995 to 31.07.1995 and, thereafter, he never worked. The plea that petitioner worked without any remuneration for three years cannot be accepted as this plea has been taken just to give impression that he worked for three years since 2006. While the petitioner claimed to have worked as Additional Village Servant from 01.02.1995 to 31.07.1995 on a remuneration of Rs.530/- and, again, after a lapse of ten years, he worked on a remuneration of Rs.500/- cannot be accepted. Petitioner, however, failed to mention from which period to which period he worked and also failed to produce any document to establish that he worked for three years.

Petitioner claims that, in the year 2011, Sri Kotum Venkateswara Rao was appointed as Village Revenue Assistant in Gollavilli Village, replacing him. If that is the case, what prevented the petitioner not to challenge the said order in the year 2011 itself. However, he filed O.A.No.1928 of 2014 on 09.03.2014. It is admitted case of the petitioner that there was no notification or publication for the post of Village Revenue Assistant.

Mandal by the endorsement dated 25.03.2013.

We find no substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petition pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI,J Dt:30.01.2018 usd