Akshaya Pathra Hyma, v. The State Project Director,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.15488 OF 2015 ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the proceedings dated 15.02.2015 issued by the second respondent in not continuing the petitioner as Special Officer of KGBV, Kammarpally, Nizamabad District and not renewing her services, as arbitrary and illegal.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is a local candidate of Nizamabad District and belongs to BC-D community. When the respondents issued a notification for appointment of Special Officer, she fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the said notification. Based on her educational qualifications and eligibility, she was initially appointed as Special Officer of Kammarpally KGBV, Nizamabad District, on contract basis, on monthly remuneration of Rs.15,000/-. When the 2nd respondent issued proceedings on 15.2.2015 whereby she was asked to handover the charge of the institution as her contract was not renewed, the present writ petition was filed.

Counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the

respondents wherein it is stated that the employment of the petitioner is on contract basis and she has no right to continue beyond the period of contract. It is further stated that the OSD was asked to conduct enquiry into the allegations on malfunctioning of KGBV Kammarpally and accordingly, he submitted a detailed report on 28.11.2014 and found certain irregularities. In view of the said irregularities, the contract of the petitioner was not renewed.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per condition No.5 of the term of appointment, the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated without issuing any notice and assigning reasons.

The letter of appointment dated 11.12.2013 shows that she was engaged on contract basis for a period of one year and it expired on 10.12.2014. There is no material placed before this Court to show that the contract of the petitioner was renewed. Further, in the impugned order it is stated that because of the poor performance of the petitioner, the contract was not renewed.

In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined

to interfere with the impugned proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_______________________________________ JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO 13th July, 2016 rkk