Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
R.Samelu 6 Ors. vs Prl. Secy., Endowments Dept. 3 Ors. on 31 July, 2024
APHC010541562015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3333]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA
WRIT PETITION NO: 39852/2015
Between:
R.samelu & 6 Ors. and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Prl Secy Endowments Dept 3 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K SRINIVAS
2. K RAM PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)
2. G RAMA RAO
3. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"....to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action the action of the 3 rd respondent in not permitting the petitioners to work as a Sanitation Workers in the 3rd respondent temple is illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice consequently direct the respondent No.3 to continue the petitioners as Sanitation Workers of Sri Mahanandeeswara Swamy Devasthanam, Mahanandi Village and Mandal, Kurnool District forthwith...."
2. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance of the tender notification dated 13.01.2015 for supply of sanitation workers issued by the 3rd respondent, the 4th respondent has participated in the same and was declared successful in bidding. Accordingly, the 4th respondent has deputed the petitioners herein as sanitation workers in the 3rd respondent temple. While so, the president of Mahanandeswara Swami Workers Union has filed a writ petition before this Court vide W.P.No.2051 of 2015. In pursuance of the orders passed in the aforesaid writ petition, only 25 workers out of 50 were continued as sanitation workers, as the newly appointed workers of the 4th respondent were already on their rolls. When the petitioners have approached the Deputy Commissioner, Labour on 19.01.2015, the 4th respondent has accepted to depute the petitioners herein as sanitation workers, but, till date, the petitioners were not permitted to work as sanitation workers in the 3rd respondent temple. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.
3. The respondent No.3 has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that there is no direct relation between the persons supplied by the outsourcing agency and the 3rd respondent temple and that there is no employer and employee relation between the manpower supplied by the outsourcing agency and the 3rd respondent devasthanam. It is further stated that from 2006 till date, the 3rd respondent has invited tenders from outsourcing agencies for the purpose of getting manpower. During the year 2014 to 2015, as the 4th respondent agency stood as the highest bidder in the tender, the petitioners herein were deputed as sanitary workers by the 4th respondent agency. For the subsequent year i.e. 2015-16 also, the 4th respondent stood as the highest bidder and has supplied manpower to the 3rd respondent temple, by replacing the petitioners with some other persons. For the action taken by the 4th respondent agency, the 3rd respondent has got nothing to do.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Endowments and Sri. G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3.
5. On a perusal of the material paper filed by the petitioners and as well as the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is evident that the petitioners were directed to work as sanitary workers in the 3rd respondent temple through the 4th respondent agency who stood as the highest bidder in pursuance of the tender notification dated 13.01.2015 issued for the year 2014-2015. In view of the same, there is no direct relationship between the petitioners and the 3rd respondent temple, as the petitioners were supplied by the 4th respondent agency. Even otherwise, the petitioners were not appointed by the 3rd respondent temple, but were deputed by the 4th respondent agency to work in the said post for the year 2014-2015. As such, the petitioners do not have any right to challenge the action of the 3rd respondent in not permitting the petitioners to work as sanitary workers. As there are no merits in the present writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:31.07.2024 Gss