B. Padmavathi, v. Sri Gsrkr Vijay Kumar,
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 35011 of 2013 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 614 OF 2014 DATED 24th JUNE, 2016 BETWEEN B.Padmavathi]
...Petitioner in both WP & CC
And The Chairman cum District Collector, (District Child protection Society) Ongole, Prakasam District and ors
...Respondents in WP
Sri GSRKR Vijay Kumar The Chairman cum District Collector (District Child Protection Society) Ongole, Prakasam District
...Respondent in CC.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 35011 of 2013 AND CONTEMPT CASE No. 614 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER:
The Writ Petition and Contempt Case are being disposed of by this common order after hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader while taking up WVMP.NO.4069 of 2013 for consideration.
The petitioner is a graduate and practiced for a period of ten years in the District Court of Prakasam District. She applied and got selected to the post of Legal-cum-Probation Officer vide proceedings dated 29.06.2012. The selection of the petitioner is governed by the guidelines issued by the authorities. When the services of the petitioner were not renewed without passing any speaking order, she filed the present Writ Petition. This Court while admitting the Writ Petition on 04.12.2013 granted interim direction to continue the petitioner as Legalcum-Probation Officer. A counter affidavit was filed by the fourth respondent stating that the petitioner was selected and appointed as Legalcum-Probation Officer under the District Child Protection Unit on contract basis for a period of one year.
The allegation of the petitioner that she was appointed for a period of three years was denied. The period of contract was one year commencing from 02.07.2012 to 01.07.2013. The petitioner accepted the terms and conditions of appointment. When she made complaintS, the Project Director has arranged a meetingwith ICPS staff on 25.06.2013 and advised the staff to work peacefully. After completion of one year period of contract, the contract of the petitioner was not renewed. It is stated in the counter affidavit that out of nine members working in the unit, contract of four members was renewed.
Meanwhile complaining that the respondents have not implemented the order of this Court dated 04.12.2013 passed in WPMP.No.43521 of 2013 in Writ Petition No. 35011 of 2013, the petitioner filed the present Contempt Case.
It is clear from the aforesaid averments that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of one year commencing from 02.07.2012 to 01.07.2013. It is stated that there were some misunderstandings between the petitioner and other staff members and the contract of the petitioner was not extended. It is also clear from the averments made in the counter affidavit that out of nine members initially appointed for a period of one year on contract basis, the contract of four members alone was renewed. The letter of appointment dated 29.06.2012 which was filed along with WVMP makes it clear that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of one year with honorarium of Rs.12000/- per month. In view of the same, no relief can be granted and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition, the Contempt Case is closed. Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition and Contempt Case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
-------------------------------------------------- JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO DATED 24th JUNE, 2016.
Msnrx