Allowed

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022WP/4216/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged his reversion from the post of Revenue Officer to Senior Assistant by the Commissioner. The Court, observing that similarly situated persons were not reverted and directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in his original post, allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned proceedings and direct respondents to continue the petitioner as Revenue Officer in Eluru Municipal Corporation.

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs the State of Ap — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4216 of 2020

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in reverting the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant from the post of Revenue Officer vide proceedings in Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-4, dated 13.02.2020 issued by the Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru as wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, total nonapplication of mind violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of principles of natural Justice and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be continued in the post of Revenue Officer, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders...”

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was considered and he was appointed as Junior Assistant on 14.02.1990, on compassionate grounds and was posted in Eluru Municipality, which was subsequently upgraded as Municipal Corporation. In the meanwhile, petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 26.11.2007, and thereafter, he was promoted as Superintendent on Ad-hoc basis and orders were issued by the Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, vide proceedings in Roc.No.2785/2011-C1, dated 30.04.2012. On completion of 5 years of service as Senior Assistant, Commissioner has regularized his services with effect from 28.11.2012 vide proceedings Roc.No.2785/2011/C1, dated 16.01.2013. Further the petitioner was promoted as Revenue Officer vide proceedings in Roc.No.2785/2011-C1, dated 29.10.2015, issued by the Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation. While the

¶7

¶8

matter stood thus, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Commissioner in Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-3, dated 13.12.2019 calling for explanation as to why he should not be reverted to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground that his promotion was not approved by the then Special Officer, Eluru Municipal Corporation & District Collector, West Godavari and that he has not completed 5 years of service in the cadre of Senior Assistant as on the date of promotion. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation on 19.12.2019. However, without considering the explanation and without giving any opportunity, the 4th respondent has issued impugned proceedings vide Roc.no.2785/2011/C1-4, dated 13.02.2020. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

¶9

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents while denying all the averments made in the petition, contended that as per Rule 15 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, the petitioner herein is not eligible for promotion for the post of Superintendent unless he is having minimum period of five (05) years in the lower category or grade. It is further stated that the petitioner obtained the promotion on ad-hoc basis, but there is no such provision under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Subordinate Service Rules, 1966. It is stated similarly situated persons like the petitioner were not reverted, all the persons who were got ad-hoc promotions as on 30.04.2012 were downgraded from the post of Superintendents and orders were issued. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration for the respondents.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that similarly situated persons like the petitioner were not reverted even though audit objections were raised in their cases with regard to promotion and they were continuing in the promotion post. He further submitted that the petitioner has not known as to why he was reverted to the post of Senior Assistant after a lapse of 8 years and contended that his reversion was done by the respondents to promote their own interested persons in his place without following any procedure.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 19.12.2019 stating that as per the qualifications and rules she has obtained promotion as Superintendent. But the petitioner has not completed five years of service as on date of 30.04.2012 when she was promoted. He further submitted that as per Rule 15 of Hyderabad Corporation Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, reads as under:

¶14

Rule 15: Promotions and appointments by direct recruitment;

¶15

(1) No person shall ordinarily be eligible for promotion to the next higher category or grade unless he has put in a minimum period of five years of service in the lower category or grade.

¶16

(2) Promotion to selection post shall be made on grounds of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and the ability are approximately equal.

¶17

In pursuance of the letter No.2803/11/K1, dated 17.04.2012 the Director of Municipal Administration, A.P., Hyderabad has sanctioned the seven number of Superintendent posts to Eluru Municipal Corporation and to fill said posts. Accordingly, in the above orders, the then Special Officer prepared the eligible candidates of Senior

¶18

¶19

Assistants list for the post of 7 number superintendents posts and submitted before the counsel for approval. Thereafter, same posts were approved by the then Special Officer, Eluru Municipal Corporation vide General Body Resolution No.178, dated 21.04.2012.

¶20

On hearing, this Court observed that, in pursuance of the resolution, dated 21.04.2012, the Corporation has given promotions as per seniority. The petitioner has obtained promotion on Ad-hoc basis, but there is no such provision under Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 and also in the Audit Report 2014-15 raised the objection regarding approval and further directed to initiate necessary action to revert the individual to the eligible post and recover the excess payment thus made consequent to their promotion.

¶21

It is not in dispute that similarly situated persons like the petitioner were not reverted, all the persons who were got Ad-hoc promotions as on 30.04.2012 were downgraded from the post of Superintendents and orders were issued to recover the amount drawn in the cadre of Superintendent. It is also not in dispute that the individual reverted to the post of Senior Assistant without following the procedure. The State Audit Department, West Godavari, Eluru is also pointed out the same objection in the Audit Para No.6(74) of the Audit Report for the year 2014-15, which report communicated to the Eluru Municipal Corporation in the year 2017. The appointing authority for the post of superintendent, the Special Officer, Municipal Corporation, Eluru and Collector & District Magistrate, West Godavari, Eluru has issued note orders on 11.01.2020 and resolution on 29.01.2020.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court

¶23

¶24

is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, while setting aside the impugned proceedings in Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-4, dated 13.02.2020 issued by the Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Revenue Officer in Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶25

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶26

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶27

____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶28

Dated: 22.07.2022. ASH

¶29

¶30

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.4216 of 2020

¶32

22.07.2022

¶33

ASH

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Chandra Sekhara Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Nizam, Vs The Chairman and Managing Director

Pasa Ramayyamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

K.S.R. Lingeswari Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Bhimavarapu Babu Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.v Annapurna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh