B. Anil Kumar, v. State Of Andhra Pradesh.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY W.V.M.P.No.3926 of 2017 in WRIT PETITION No. 30260 OF 2017 ORDER:
This writ petition is filed challenging the Memo No.148/ABC/CS/2017, dated 01.09.2017 issued by the Chairman of the 2nd respondent-Corporation, wherein the services of all District Coordinators and Constituency Coordinators, including the petitioners, are withdrawn. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Sumanth, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3.
It is the case of the petitioners that they have been appointed as Municipal Coordinator by the Managing Director of the A.P.Brahmin Welfare Corporation, by proceedings Lr.No.93/ABC/HR-MC/2016, dated 27.12.2016 till 30th October, 2017. But the Chairman of the respondent Corporation issued the impugned proceedings dated 01.09.2017 withdrawing the services of the petitioners, without assigning any reasons.
Counter affidavit is filed along with vacate stay petition denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition stating that though the petitioners were directed to give monthly reports through online, they have not
submitted such reports and that they are not properly performing their work.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when once the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation appointed the petitioners, the Chairman cannot remove the petitioners, without any notice.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment proceedings, petitioners can be removed without any notice, as such, petitioners cannot have any grievance. He submits that now the post of District Coordinators and Constituency Coordinators were redesignated as Mandal Coordinators and that applications have been invited and petitioners can make applications for the same.
It is to be seen that though the impugned order does not refer to any allegations against the petitioners, but in the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioners and others, who are appointed as District Coordinators are not properly performing their works, as such, the Chairman has issued impugned proceedings removing the petitioners and others from said posts. It appears that the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation has issued appointment orders and same were withdrawn by the Chairman of the respondent Corporation. Interim orders were granted on 07.09.2017.
Even according to the petitioners, their tenure will comes to an end by 31st December, 2017, as such, I do not see any reason to vacate the interim order. Therefore, interim order granted on 07.09.2017 will continue till 31.12.2017. However, it is open for the respondent Corporation to utilise the services of the petitioners as Mandal Coordinators, if they choose to do so. It is needless to observe that the interim order is confined only to the petitioners herein. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J 12-10-2017 kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30260 OF 2017 Date: 12.10.2017 kvs