ORDER : (K. Manmadha Rao, J.) : WP No.18667 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “… to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 4th respondent in issuing Termination Order in the form of Notice vide ROC No 11/2021/F1 dated 19082021 served on petitioners on 21082021 and also the action of 5th respondent in issuing a Proceedings dated 04062021 and also the Proceedings of 4th respondent in ROC No 11/2021/F1 dated 23062021 addressing to the 3rd respondent / District Collector to appoint new 34 Employees replacing petitioners and 17 others and also the Proceedings of rd respondent vide No PILDCPRK004258120820210908 dated 12082021 appointing 34 new employees is illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently set aside the Termination Order issued in the form of Notice vide ROC No 11/2021/F1 dated 19082021 served on petitioners on 21082021 by directing the respondents 4 and 5 to continue the petitioners in their respective posts as Outsourcing Employees and pass…” WP No.11839 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “….to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondents in terminating/removing the petitioners from employment contrary to their own proceedings issued vide Circular Memo No GADO1 SUOMISC/31/2019SUI dated 20112019 and without any prior notice as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioners into service forthwith in view of the proceedings vide Circular Memo No GADO1 SUOMISC/31/2019SUI dated 20112019 and pass…” WP No.27910 of 2021 is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ or Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not allowing the petitioners to work from 19102021 without there being any notice of termination or followed the procedure contemplated under the Government Memo GAD01SUOMISC/31/2019SUI dated 20112019 issued by the 1st respondent and also not paying the salary from 20112020 as illegal arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take the petitioners to work and to pay arrears of salary by treating the gap between 19102021 to till date as continuity of service and pass…” 2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are being taken up for hearing as well as disposed of by way of this Common Order. 3. Since the facts in all the writ petitions are similar and identical, therefore WP No.18667 of 2021 is taken as lead case, and the facts therein hereinafter will be referred to for convenience. 4. The facts of the case are that the petitioners herein have been working as Contract Employees on outsourcing basis for the last 12 years in Engineering & Sanitary Divisions of 4th respondent and they have been discharging their duties with utmost care and caution without there being any complaint from any corner. By virtue of G.O.Ms.No.126 GA (SU-I) Department, dated 18.10.2019 and G.O.Ms.No.136 GA (SU-I) Department, dated 04.11.2019 the 2nd respondent Corporation was incorporated under Section 8 of Companies Act 2013 with an object that it shall act as a “placement Agency for Outsourcing Manpower” by placing outsourced manpower to the Departments/Organizations of Government of Andhra Pradesh, as per their indent/requirements,. The 1st respondent also issued a Circular in Memo No.GADO-SUOMISC/31/2019-SU-1 dated 20.11.2019. While the things stood thus, the 5th respondent on 4.6.2021 yielding to the political pressure addressed a letter to the 4th respondent to remove 34 employees of their choice, attributing that the petitioners have not been discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the people. In turn, the 4th respondent vide proc. In Roc.No.11/2021/F1, dated 23.06.2021 forwarded a proposal to replace new 34 employees in place of existing 34 employees including the petitioners. Later, the 3rd respondent/ District Collector forwarded the same to the 2nd respondent/Corporation and in turn the 2nd respondent/ Corporation vide proc.No.PIL-DC-PRK-004258-120820210908 dated 12.08.2021 gave placement Intimation Letter appointing 34 new employees in the existing post, after receiving the above proceedings dated 12.8.2021, the 4th respondent vide proc. In Roc.No.11/2021/F1 dated 19.08.2021 issued termination order in the form of Notices stating that w.e.f 20.08.2021 the petitioners’ services were terminated. The said notices were received by the petitioners on the next day I,.e., on 21.8.2021 and on the same day the petitioners tendered explanation that they were not neglected their duties and requested to continue them in the services. Questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Termination Order in the form of Notice as stated above, the present writ petition is filed. 5. Questioning the action of the 4th respondent in issuing Termination Order in the form of Notice as stated above, the present writ petition is filed. 5. The counter affidavits are filed in all three matters, for convenience, the averments in counter in W.P.No.18667 of 2021 are stated as under: 6. The counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent, while denying all the allegations made in the petition inter alia contended that all the petitioners herein are not rendering their services in Chirala Municipality properly. There is inaction and gross negligence on their part in attending duties and that the duties are not satisfactory which resulted irreparable loss to the Chirala Municipality. Further, Chirala Municipality is vexed with writ petitioners’ negligence to the duties and Chirala Municipality intimated to them about their misconduct of duties. It is stated that this respondent issued Circular orders to the Assistant Engineer, Engineering Section, Chirala and also to the Sanitary Inspector, Sanitary section basing on the letter issued by the Chairperson 4.6.2021. they made enquiry and submitted reports on 18.6.2021. On 3.4.2021 the petitioners No.14 to 16 left the jobs voluntarily without any intimation by avoiding duties and filed the present writ petition with false allegations. It is further stated that the 4th respondent and 5th respondent followed strictly the termination process mentioned in the circular and G.Os and also following the removal conditions mentioned in the placement intimation letter. It is further stated that after receipt of the complaints against the petitioners, conducted enquiry and submitted a report to this respondent on 18.6.2021 by the Municipal Assistant Engineer, Chirala Municipality and Sanitary Inspector I/c Chirala Municipality and issued notice dated 19.8.2021 to the petitioners and not to attend duties from 20.08.2021. The respondent authorities have followed the procedure to initiate the action against the petitioners. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 7. The 5th respondent in WP No.18667 of 2021 has also filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made in the petition. it is stated that this respondent has taken a charge as a Chairperson of Chirala Municipality on 18.3.2021 and thereafter he received complaints from the several councilors against the writ petitioners stating that who are working as outsourcing employees not performing their duties properly. Thereafter, Ward Councilors also submitted written complaints to this respondent on 12.4.2021, 03.05.2021, 4.5.2021 etc. it is stated that this respondent has taken a charge as a Chairperson of Chirala Municipality on 18.3.2021 and thereafter he received complaints from the several councilors against the writ petitioners stating that who are working as outsourcing employees not performing their duties properly. Thereafter, Ward Councilors also submitted written complaints to this respondent on 12.4.2021, 03.05.2021, 4.5.2021 etc. Accordingly, this respondent issued instructions to the Commissioner, Chirala Municipality to take necessary action and recruit new persons in the place of alleged outsourced employees. It is stated that this respondent being a Chairperson, he has addressed the grievances to the 4th respondent Commissioner to initiate action against the alleged outsourced employees i.e., writ petitioners herein, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Heard Sri V. Vinod K Reddy and Sri N. Ravi Prasad, learned counsels appearing for the petitioners; learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services- IV and Sri K. Sreedhar Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners while reiterating the averments made in the petitions, submits that, as could be seen from the entire Circular and G.O.s, there is no termination process envisages, as per Clause 2.1 All the outsourcing employees who are currently engage shall be migrated to the APCOS, which will act as a Placement Agency.”. No employee who is engage in outsourcing currently shall be remove”. As per these clauses no employee shall be removed by the Department/ Organizations of A.P Government who engaged them. He further submits that, in the present cases, the petitioners have been working for the last 12 years with the 4th respondent and by virtue of incorporation of 2nd respondent/ Corporation they have been migrated to APCOS w.e.f 16.11.2020 videPIADC- PKR-031610161120201011. Learned counsel mainly contended that once the petitioners are migrated, they shall not be removed and that the respondents No.3 to 5 do not have any power to remove the petitioners. Further, so far the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders of removal since it is appointing authority. 10. Learned counsel mainly contended that once the petitioners are migrated, they shall not be removed and that the respondents No.3 to 5 do not have any power to remove the petitioners. Further, so far the 2nd respondent has not passed any orders of removal since it is appointing authority. 10. Learned counsel further submits that as per Clause 1 of the Circular, the Corporation shall work to achieve : (i) Removal of Private Outsourcing Agencies / Middle Man (ii) Corruption free Outsourcing Placement (iii) Implementation of 50% reservation for BC, SC, ST and Minorities and 50% reservation for Women (iv) Timely & Full Payment of Remuneration without any undue cuts and (v) Proper credit of EPF and ESI. Clause 2 - Deals with guidelines for engage Outsourced Manpower: 2.1 For the purposes of engaging the outsourced employees who are working with the departments. - All the outsourced employees who are currently engaged shall be migrated to the APCOS, which will act as a placement agency - No employee who is engaged in outsourcing currently shall be removed. - For the purposes of migrating the outsourcing employee, the unit shall be the contract or the department where the employees are currently engaged - The contract or the department unit shall be assigned a unique code and the migration shall happen in toto. - Reservation shall be applied to the contractor or the department unit - While migrating the employees, proof of account number, EPF & ESI account shall be salary slip along with bank collected. 11. Learned counsel further submits that, by virtue of above guidelines dated 20.11.2019 the petitioners have been migrated to the 2nd respondent Corporation since the petitioners were working for the last 12 years and currently as outsourced employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as per the Guidelines mentioned above dated 20.11.2019 and also the respondents No.4 and 5 do not have any right to remove or appoint people of their choice as outsourcing employees. It is only the 2nd respondent inconsonant with District Level Committee can appoint or remove any outsourcing employees, in the present case the 5th respondent who does not have any power issued proceedings to remove existing 34 employees by appointing new 34 employees. It is only the 2nd respondent inconsonant with District Level Committee can appoint or remove any outsourcing employees, in the present case the 5th respondent who does not have any power issued proceedings to remove existing 34 employees by appointing new 34 employees. The same was processed by 4th respondent and approved by the 2nd respondent, after appointing new persons in the place of existing employees including the petitioners, termination notices were served, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners requests this Court to pass appropriate orders. 12. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents also reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavits. He submits that there is a stipulation in placement intimation letter that the Chirala Municipality is at liberty to withdraw them at any time without assigning any reasons of further notices. The respondents No.3 to 5 have powers to remove the petitioners were there is gross negligence of duties and misconduct. If the writ petitioners are continued in outsourcing contract services the vision and objectives of the outsourcing services will be defeated as several complaints have received from public and Municipal ward councilors and the same is supported by documentary evidence and keeping in view of the above necessary action has to be taken and the respondents No.4 and 5 initiated termination of the services of writ petitioners having made enquiry as per rules framed with a viewed to create transparent, accountable and sustainable outsourcing by replacing writ petitions and recruiting new candidates. He further submits that the writ petitioners having given declarations agreeing the terms and conditions of placement intimation letters to the Chirala Municipality acted contrary to the said declaration filed false writ petitions against the 4th respondent and others which is absolutely not maintainable as per law. He further submits that, after receipt of complaints against the petitioners, conducted enquiry and subtitled report by the Municipal Assistant engineer, Chirala Municipality and Sanitary Inspector I/c Chirala Municipality and issued notice dated 19.08.2021 to the petitioners and not to attend duties from 20.08.2021 the respondent authorities have followed the procedure to initiate the action against the petitioners. 13. He further submits that, after receipt of complaints against the petitioners, conducted enquiry and subtitled report by the Municipal Assistant engineer, Chirala Municipality and Sanitary Inspector I/c Chirala Municipality and issued notice dated 19.08.2021 to the petitioners and not to attend duties from 20.08.2021 the respondent authorities have followed the procedure to initiate the action against the petitioners. 13. On hearing the matters and the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the view that, as per Circular Memo dated 20.11.2019, the guidelines for engaging outsourced manpower clearly states that “All the outsourced employees who are currently engaged shall be migrated to the APCOS which will act as a placement agency and No employee who is engaged in outsourcing currently shall be removed. So, in view of the same, the respondents have no authority to remove the petitioners as they are migrated to the APCOS. It is also observed that the respondents without any prior intimation to the APCOS, they removed the names of the petitioners from the APCOS portal, which is highly illegal and arbitrary. 14. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). 15. The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the material available on record, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petitions by setting aside all the impugned orders in these writ petitions and also inclined to remand back the matters to the respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation. 17. Accordingly, all the impugned termination proceedings are hereby set aside. Further, the matters are remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. With the above observations, all the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 19. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.