P. Naveen Rao, J.

In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the termination /non renewal of their contract for a further period as Field Assistants under the National Rural Employment Generation Scheme on the ground that they have not achieved the performance targets fixed to them. Since the issue for consideration in all these writ petitions being same, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by common order.

2. Heard Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel, Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, Sri Vedula Srinivas, Sri V. Maheshwar Reddy, Sri Tadi Nageshwar Rao, Sri Mohana Rami Reddy, Sri Jagdishwar, Sri K.Srinivas, Sri Ch. Srinivas, Sri Gade Venkateswara Rao, Sri N. Ashwatha Narayana, Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, Sri V. Surendra Reddy, Sri N Chandrashekar Reddy, Sri V.Surendra Reddy, Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Sri P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Sri Syed Azmatullah, Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Sri Rama Rao Mavidi, Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao, appearing for petitioners in respective writ petitions, Sri MSR Chandra Murthy, learned Special counsel representing Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), learned Advocate General and learned Government Pleader respectively and with their consent the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience the documents as filed in W.P.No. 27538 of 2015 are reflected in the body of the order.

3. Leading the arguments on behalf of petitioners in the batch of writ petitions, learned senior counsel has taken through various provisions of the 'National Rural Employment Generation Act, 2005' (for short the 'Act, 2005'), A.P. Rural Employment Generation Scheme (for short, 'the Scheme'), various circulars, model form of contract and Field Assistants Human Resources Policy. Learned senior counsel, contended that right is vested in the able bodied persons to demand work and when such a demand is made, it is mandatory to provide work. The person who is interested to undertake work in the said manner has to enrol himself, obtain wage card and has to submit a demand for provision of work. He therefore contended that it is voluntary on the part of the individual to demand work and no person can force on the person concerned to seek work. The impugned circulars and resultant decision not to renew the contract of employment is based on illegal ground that the petitioners did not ensure enforcement of work from the able bodied persons and did not achieve the targets fixed for them contrary to the object of the Act.

4. By referring to the provisions in Sections 12, 13 and 16 of the Act, 2005, learned senior counsel contended that two different mechanisms are created, one with reference to formulation of policy and second with reference to enforcement. Hierarchy of officers/authorities are created by the Act assigning individual responsibilities at various levels.

5. Learned senior counsel, further contended that as envisaged by Section 32 of the Act, the State of Andhra Pradesh formulated the scheme and for the first time the scheme envisages role to the Field Assistants which was not contemplated by the Act. However, as seen from Clauses 7 (2) and (16) of the scheme limited role is assigned to Field Assistants. They are required to assist the Gram Panchayat in identification of the works and in their implementation.

6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that in terms of Section 12 of the Act, a State Employment Guarantee Council has to be constituted which is the apex body at the State level for implementation and coordination under the Act and admittedly no such council has been constituted by the State Government. Guideline No.6 (10) and (11) which confers power on Commissioner, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to implement and coordinate the scheme runs counter to Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, Guideline No. 6(10) and (11) are ultra virus the Act. As the Commissioner has issued various circul