Through this constitutional petition the petitioner seeks cancellation of appointment of Respondents No, 7 and 8 who are working as Patwari in Tehsil Keror District I ayyah.
2. Learned counsel submitted that respondent DDO (R), Keror District Layyah issued appointment Letter No, 11,12 & 15 as Patwaris to Respondents No, 7 and 8 on 16.1.1998 on the basis of this appointment letter Respondents No, 7 and 8 joined the office of Patwari. Learned counsel further submitted that Deputy Commissioner/District Officer (R) Respondent No, 4 directed the Respondent No, .5 to cancel the appointments of Respondents No, 7 and 8 as their appointments have been made during the ban. He further contended that in compliance of order dated 4.2.2008 D.D.O. (Revenue), Keror Respondent No, 5 withdrew the appointment order of Respondents No, 7 and 8 vide order dated 4.2.1998; that Respondent No, 7 filed W.P. No, 1019/98 and this writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and also on merits vide order dated 9.12.2002 whereas W.P. No, 1020/98 was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.12.2003. Learned counsel submitted that he moved an application to Respondent No, 6 that Respondents No, 7 and 8 had committed fraud with the department and they are working as Patwari, their appointments should be withdrawn. Petitioner also submitted applications to other revenue officers. The petitioner also approached the Anti- Corruption department and to her high-ups for action against Respondents No, 7 and 3 but all in vain. The petitioner made his best efforts filing complaints before respondents and before other forums for the removal of the Respondents No, 7 and 8 from the office of Patwari. As a lost resort petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. At the very out set this Court put him a question to the petitioner how he is aggrieved of the appointments made in 1998 near about 12 years have elapsed and he has filed this writ petition such a belated stage. The petitioner replied that the petitioner has filed the application before the authorities who are impleaded as respondents but no body give attention to the request of the petitioner but he could not answer how he is aggrieved from the appointments of Respondents No, 7 and 8. In my opinion it appears that petitioner has some personal vendetta against Respondents No, 7 and 8 as he is continuously making complaints against Respondents No, 7 and
8. This Court cannot assume the role of Investigating Officer as much factual controversy is involved and it needs probe and investigation about the allegation leveled against Respondents No, 7 and 8. For some personal vendetta discretionary powers in the Constitutional petition cannot be exercised.
4. In the light of above discussion this writ petition is dismissed in limine.