A. SRINIVASU Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief:

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Semi-skilled Analyst in the year 2003. Subsequently, posts were sanctioned by the Government and respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.1577/05/To dtd. 26/12/2005 permitted respondent No.3 to appoint one semi- skilled Analyst. Therefore, petitioner was continued in the said post. While petitioner was rendering his services, basing on oral instructions of Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam, circular vide Rc.No.TO/14/16, dated 30.03.02019 was issued by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation), Arakuvalley, instructing Agricultural Officers (Soil Conservation), Arakuvalley, Hukumpeta and Asst. Engineer (Soil Conservation), Pedaguda centres/ranges not to engage any lab or field persons along with drivers on petty contract basis w.e.f. 1/4/2019 for maintenance of silt/Sediment Monitoring Stations and services of respective persons have been dispensed with in the division on the afternoon of 31/3/2019. As per the averments in the affidavit, petitioner was orally informed not to attend the duties. However, said notice/memo was displayed in the notice board. Assailing the said notice/memo, above writ petition is filed.

(3.) Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that petitioner was appointed as Silt Analyst on petty contract basis on daily basis during 2003. Though petitioner was engaged, he was not continuously engaged for the entire month and he was engaged only for 26 days in a month. Petitioner was continued in the work till 30/3/2019 on petty contract basis/outsourcing. As there was no necessity in the absence of required work, the services of petitioner was dispensed along with four other workers w.e.f 30/3/2019.