JUDGMENT :

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

1. Heard Sri Peeta Raman, learned counsel representing Smt S. Priyanka, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri C.B. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel representing Sri K.V. Raghu Veer, learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order of direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus:

(i) Calling for the records of the proceedings dated 19.07.2019 and 20.07.2019 of the respondents 1 and 2 respectively also declare the action of the 1st respondent in instructing the 2nd respondent to terminate petitioner's contract as Special Officer vide Rc. No. 47/APSSA/KGBV/2019, dated 19.07.2019 and also the consequential action of the 2nd respondent in terminating petitione's contract as Special Officer vide Rc. No. 667/APSSA/KGBVs/A2/2019, dated 20.07.2019 in furtherance of 1st respondent proceedings dt.19.07.2019 and further the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the 3rd respondent to provide fresh appointment to petitioner as Contract Residential Teacher instead of reinstating her as Special Officer as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative besides violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

3. The petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 19.07.2019 of the 1st respondent and 20.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent as also the action of the 2nd respondent in directing the 3rd respondent to provide fresh appointment to the petitioner as Contract Residential Teacher (CRT).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Special Officer on contract basis on 13.12.2013 under erstwhile Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (now known as Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan) (for short “SSA”) and was posted at Kurichedu of Prakasam District. Due to some personal grudge, a news item was published in Andhra Jyothi daily news paper on 27.11.2018 under the caption of “KGBV LO VIDHYARTHINULA AAKALI KEKALU” (In KGBV students raising hungry cries), responding to which, GCDO visited the KGBV on 03.12.2018 and thereafter the petitioner's contract as a Special Officer was terminated vide proceedings in Rc. No. 667/APSSA/KGBVs/A2/2019 dated 20.07.2019 of the 2nd respondent under the instruction of the 1st respondent-State Project Director vide proceedings Rc. No. 47/APSSA/KGBV/2019 dated 19.07.2019. He further submitted that vide proceedings Rc. No. 1359/APSSA/KGBV/A2/2019, dated 13.12.2019, the 3rd respondent appointed the petitioner as Contract Residential Teacher on out-sourcing basis pursuant to which the petitioner joined on 23.12.2019, and since then she is discharging the duties as Contract Residential Teacher.

5. Challenging the impugned orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner. There is gross violation of the principles of natural justice. A detailed enquiry before terminating the petitioner's contract was not conducted. He submitted that instead of providing fresh appointment to the petitioner as CRT, she should have been reinstated as a Special Officer. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of V.P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 3 SCC 239, B. Yogeswaramma vs. Collector, Collectorate Office, Srikakulam District and Others, 2017 (4) ALD 615 (DB).

6. Sri C.B. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the petitioner was engaged as a Special Officer on contract basis for a period of 11 months and 28 days vide last engagement on 01.05.2019. Such engagements are revived or terminated based upon the performance of the individual. He further submitted that on 27.11.2018 a news article KGBV was published and taking note thereof the 1st respondent-the State Project Director deputed an inspection team which visited the institution on 29.11.2018 and submitted a report of highly irregular functioning