Allowed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jul 2022WP/4239/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the reversion of a petitioner from Superintendent to Senior Assistant, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that despite regulatory objections and a show cause notice, the proceedings were set aside. The court directed the respondents to continue the petitioner as Superintendent in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Rr. Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-2 dated 13.02.2020 were set aside and the petitioner was directed to continue as Superintendent.

K.S.R. Lingeswari Vs State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.4239 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 Superintendent vide proceedings in Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-2, dated 13.02.2020 issued by the Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation as wholly illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, total non-application 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 Superintendent, Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District and to pass such other order or orders.”

¶6

The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner's father working as Teacher in Municipal high School, Eluru, unfortunately died in harness. As on the date of his death, the petitioner was pursuing B.A. II year. In order to earn livelihood for her family, she discontinued her studies and made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner's case was considered and she was appointed as Junior Assistant on 07.09.1992, on compassionate grounds and was posted in Eluru Municipality, which was subsequently upgraded as Municipal Corporation. Later, petitioner completed her B.A. Degree course through distance education from Andhra University in April, 2007 and the same was informed to Municipal Corporation authorities. But, it appears that, even though the petitioner has her graduation certificate the respondents have not made any entry in her Service Registry. In the meanwhile, petitioner was promoted as Senior Assistant on 03.06.2008, and thereafter, she was promoted as

¶7

¶8

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 her services with effect from 03.06.2013 vide proceedings Roc.No.2785/2011-C1, dated 03.06.2013.

¶9

While the matter stood thus, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Commissioner in Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-4, dated 13.12.2019 calling for explanation as to why she should not be reverted to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground that her promotion was not approved by the then Special Officer, Eluru Municipal Corporation & District Collector, West Godavari and that she has not completed 5 years of service in the cadre of Senior Assistant as on the date of promotion, and that she is not having the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of Superintendent. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted her detailed explanation on 16.12.2019. However, without considering the explanation and without giving any opportunity, the 4th respondent has issued impugned proceedings vide Roc.no.2785/2011/C1-2, dated 13.02.2020. Questioning the same, the present Writ Petition is been filed.

¶10

Counter affidavit is filed by the respondents while denying all the averments made in the petition, contended that it is not correct to say that the petitioner informed about her B.A. Degree which was said to be completed through distance education in the year 2007, as the petitioner never applied prior permission to appear B.A. Degree examinations. It is clearly evident from the enclosed B.A. Certificate that the degree was issued in the year 2016 from Andhra University. As per

¶11

¶12

Rule 15 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, the petitioner herein is not eligible for promotion for the post of Superintendent unless she is having minimum period of five (05) years in the lower category or grade. It was further submitted 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 contended that it is not correct to say that similar 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.

¶13

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

¶14

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 she was reverted to the post of Senior Assistant after a lapse of 8 years and contended that her reversion was done by the respondents to promote their own interested persons in her place and she was reverted without following any procedure.

¶15

On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that this respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 13.12.2019, why the petitioner should not be reverted to the post of Senior Assistant on the ground of her promotion was not approved by the then Special Officer, Eluru Municipal Corporation and District

¶16

¶17

Collector, West Godavari District at Eluru and the petitioner has submitted her explanation on 16.12.2019 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. Learned Government Pleader further submitted that as per Rule 15 of Hyderabad Corporation Subordinate Service Rules, 1966, reads as under:

¶18

Rule 15: Promotions and appointments by direct recruitment;

¶19

(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.

¶20

(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.

¶21

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 Assistants list for the post of seven 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.

¶22

This Court observed that in pursuance of the above said resolution, the Corporation has given promotions as per seniority list of the Senior Assistants. The petitioner has obtained promotion on Ad-hoc basis, but there is no such provision under Hyderabad Municipal

¶23

¶24

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.

¶25

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.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by both the learned counsels, this Court is of the considered view that, in the interest of justice, while setting aside the proceedings in Roc.No.2785/2011/C1-2, dated 13.02.2020 issued by the Commissioner, Eluru Municipal Corporation, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner as Superintendent in Eluru Municipal Corporation, Eluru, West Godavari District.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any

¶30

in the writ petition shall stand closed.

¶31

____________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J

¶32

Dated: 22.07.2022. ASH

¶33

¶34

THE HON’BLE DR.JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.4239 of 2020

¶36

22.07.2022

¶37

ASH

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

N. Vijaya Bhaskar, Vs the State of Ap

Bhimavarapu Babu Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.v Annapurna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh