Dismissed

Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi v. the Rdo., Tekkali, Srikakulam Dist and Another

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Nov 2022WP/8196/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's decision to reject the petitioner's claim for appointment. The Court held that the petitioner failed to satisfy the conditions of the relevant Government Order regarding employment exchange registration, finding no illegality in the impugned orders.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi Vs the Rdo., Tekkali… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶4

W.P.No.8196 of 2006

¶5

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice M.Ganga Rao)

¶6

This writ petition is filed against the order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, dated 14.03.2006 in O.A.No.7040 of 2003 wherein and whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of sweeper/attender.

¶7

The case of the petitioner in brief is that he was appointed as full time contingent sweeper at Taluk Office, Sompet on 23.08.1981 and he worked as such till 24.05.1985. His services were terminated w.e.f. 25.05.1985 for want of vacancy without giving any notice or opportunity to him. Hence, he approached the Tribunal by filing R.P.No.4736 of 1987 and the Tribunal, by its order dated 30.10.1987 directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner if he comes within the ambit of G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.02.1986. Hence, the petitioner filed R.M.P.No.656 of 1988 in R.P.No.4736 of 1987, which was disposed of on 29.06.1988 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within four weeks from that date. The first respondent vide his memo dated 11.08.1988 rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that he was not in service by

¶8

¶9

the time of issuance of G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.02.1986 as he has not drawn from the employment exchange. The 2^nd respondent confirmed the above memo vide order dated 04.04.1989 holding that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.02.1986. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 and 2 repeatedly from the date of orders in R.M.P.No.656 of 1988 in R.P.No.4736 of 1987. It is the further case of the petitioner that after termination of his services as sweeper, three junior most candidates were appointed and continuing them in service.

¶10

The first respondent filed a counter in O.A. stating that the applicant was appointed to the post of Full Time Contingent Sweeper, when there was ban on appointments for full time contingent posts and further the applicant was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. It is also stated in the counter that the applicant do not come under the purview of G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.02.1986. The first respondent opposed the contention of the applicant that he is representing the respondents for appointment since 1988, stating that as per record, the last representation of the applicant was made on 08.08.1992 and therefore, the matter is barred by limitation as the O.A. was filed on the basis of the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 11.08.1988 and the Collector’s orders dated

¶11

¶12

04.04.1989, and that the contingent posts are not permanent posts and the applicant is not holding a permanent post, and that the act of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant is strictly in accordance with the rules and no junior to the applicant is being continued in any contingent post, that there is no illegality or violation of principles of natural justice as contended by the applicant. It is further stated in the counter that the applicant is habituated in filing R.Ps./O.As. requesting for appointmentas attender, even though he has not fulfilled the rules in force for appointment as attender and prayed to dismiss the O.A.

¶13

After considering the rival contentions and the material available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services – I, appearing for the respondents.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the action of the respondent authorities in terminating the petitioner without giving any notice or opportunity is in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal appointed two persons as sweepers and one person as attender after terminating the petitioner and the

¶16

¶17

Tribunal failed to consider the order dated 26.10.2004 directing the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the appointment of the persons newly appointed after termination of the petitioner. He further contends that the action of the respondent authorities in terminating the petitioner and not observing the directions of the Tribunal vide orders dated 26.10.2004, is illegal, unjust and contrary to law.

¶18

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, Services – I appearing for the respondents states that the petitioner’s case was considered as per G.O.Ms.No.81, dated 13.02.1986. He further submits that the persons who were in service between 06.03.1982 and 01.01.1986 and are fulfilled the conditions of the said G.O.Ms.No.81, but whereas the petitioner was appointed as full time contingent and terminated on 25.05.1985 and he is not in service as on the date of issuance of said G.O. and his recruitment as full time contingent is not in accordance with recruitment rules as his case does not come under the rules and prays to dismiss the writ petition.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court found that the petitioner’s case was considered as per provisions of G.O.Ms.No.81 and he has not fulfilled the conditions, the first respondent rightly rejected his claim and the Tribunal also after considering the same, dismissed the O.A. Hence, we find that there

¶20

¶21

is no illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned, which warrants interference of this Court and the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶23

___________________ JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶24

____________________________ JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶25

Date: 08.11.2022 Rns

¶26

¶27

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO

¶28

AND

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER

¶30

W.P.No.8196 of 2006

¶31

DATE: 08.11.2022

¶32

Rns

Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi v. the Rdo., Tekkali, Srikakulam Dist and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi v. the Rdo., Tekkali, Srikakulam Dist and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Postmaster General, Vs J. Suseelamma

Temba Krishna Rao Vs Temba Mahalaxmi

G. Vijaya Bhaskar Vs G. Pushpa Leela

K. Vijay Kumar Vs K. Usha Rani and 2 Others

I. Balamuneiah, Anantapur Dist. Vs State of a.P., Panchayat Raj 3 Others

Nadakuditi Bala Balaji Vs Nadakuditi Satya Sai