HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.31997 of 2014 ORDER:
Heard.
The petitioner is appointed as Village Level Entrepreneur and authorized to operate Rajeev Citizens Services Centre at Rentachintala Village and Mandal, Guntur District. It is stated that an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the 4th respondent on 25-09-2012 and the said agreement is in force till the end of September, 2016. It is alleged that a Notification was issued in Andhra Jyothi on 10- 09-2014 inviting applications from interested persons for appointment as E-Seva Operators for various areas of Guntur District. The petitioner’s apprehension is that she will be displaced and new person will be appointed. The present writ petition is therefore filed to prevent appointment of any new Operator or Village Level Entrepreneur for running Rajeev Citizens Services Centre at Rentachintala Village and Mandal, Guntur District.
The Notification dated 10-09-2014, which is referred to by the petitioner, shows that 180 Mee Seva Centres are proposed to be established and for that purpose, applications are invited from graduates, who are desirous to work as such. Apprehending that she would be displaced, the petitioner states that she has already made a representation before the District Collector, Guntur, marking copies to all concerned, on 10-10-2014.
In my view, the present writ petition is filed only on apprehension, as even according to the petitioner, her agreement is in force till the end of September, 2016, and mere issuing Notification for establishment of 180 mee-seva centres by itself would not mean that the petitioner is going to be displaced.
Whether any candidates are notified or appointed and if they are appointed, whether they would be in the place of the petitioner or additional centres proposed to be established and whether any such centres are established, are all matters, as on today, highly premature to consider and as such merely on apprehension of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, as and when any action prejudicial to the petitioner is taken, the petitioner has always a remedy under law, which she may avail. The present writ petition being premature, is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 27-10-2014 Prv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.31997 of 2014 27-10-2014