G.JAYARAM v. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Recording the said submission, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Date:10.03.2026 NKA ___________________…
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
WRIT PETITION NO: 13777/2014 Between:
1. G.JAYARAM, S/O G.RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, RESIDENT OF BOYAPALLE VILLAGE, NELLIMANDA POST, SOMALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR & DISTRICT . PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR, NREGS, A.P., CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, NREGS, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
3. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SODUM MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S)
: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue Writ, or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus holding the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner by his proceedings Rc.No.K6/4263/2010 dated 11-2- 2011 as illegal, unjust and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 17210 OF 2014 W.P.No.13774_2014 HN, J 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings Rc.No.K6/4263/2010 dated 11-2-2011, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, pending disposal of the Writ petition before this Honourable court and pass such other or further orders as this Honourable court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV W.P.No.13774_2014 HN, J 3
ORDER:
The petitioner is challenging the order of termination dated
11.02.2011. The petitioner was working as a Technical Assistant on a contract basis.
The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the contract period had expired and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek reinstatement or re-engagement as a matter of fundamental right. That apart, it is submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Project Director, and that a statutory appeal lies before the Member Secretary.
Recording the said submission, it is open for the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Date:10.03.2026 NKA ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N W.P.No.13774_2014 HN, J 4 37 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO:13777 of 2014 Date: 10.03.2026 NKA
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 10 Mar 2026. The bench was HARINATH N.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.