C Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Ap

C MANOJ KUMAR, S/O C.KONDAIAH (LATE), AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT, 0/O DISTRICT BC WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT,R/O H.NO. 39/359-1-2, 1ST FLOOR, VIVEKANANDANAGAR,CHINNA CHOWK (PO), KADAPA DISTRICT

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, BC WELFARE DEPT., SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF B C WELFARE, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, VISHAL RESIDENCY, NTR ROAD, TADIGADAPA VILLAGE, PENAMALURU MANDAL, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521134, A.P.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR B C W, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE DISTRICT B C WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, YSR.

¶17

SMT B VIJAYA KUMARI, D/O MALREDDY, AGED 47 YEARS OCCU.PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR ASSISTANT,O/O DISTRICT BC WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT OFFICER, YSR DIST.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the G.O.Rt.No.139 dated 20.4.2023 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of provisions of Article 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently set aside the above G.O.Rt.No.139 dated 20.4.2023 of the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider the

¶20

2

¶21

case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with retrospective effect from 08.8.2021 and pass

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the G.O.Rt.No.139 dated 20.4.2023 issued by the 1st respondent and implement the proceedings Ref.No.A3/2557/2022, Dated: 03.02.2023 of the 3rd respondent and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to vacate the interim order Dt.25.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.10537 of 2023 and dismiss the writ petition and pass

¶25

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶26

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner herein/Respondent No.5 in the W.P.No. 10537 of 2023 to file counter affidavit in the above Writ Petition and pass

¶27

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim orders dated 25-04-2023 in lA No.1 of 2023 in W.P.No. 10537 and dismiss the petition as it has no merit and pass

¶29

IA NO: 4 OF 2025

¶30

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioner to file Reply Affidavit and to pass

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶32

1.T V V KOTESWARA RAO

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶35

2.MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI

¶36

The Court made the following:

¶37

3

¶38

ORDER:

¶39

The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the

¶40

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶41

“to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the G.O.Rt.No.139 dated 20.4.2023 issued by the 1st respondent is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law, violation of principles of natural justice and violation of provisions of Article 14, 16 and 21 of constitution of India and consequently set aside the above G.O.Rt.No.139 dated 20.4.2023 of the 1^st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with retrospective effect from 08.8.2021 and pass….”

¶42

Heard Sri T.V.V.Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no.5 was appointed on compassionate grounds and by virtue of the rules, the respondent should have acquire technical qualifications within a prescribed period and if the concerned candidate fails to acquire the requisite educational or technical qualifications within extended period, they may be considered for lower post such as attender where such educational or technical qualification is not prescribed. Subsequently vide G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.6.2004, the Government has made amendment to G.O.Ms.No.60 dated 11.02.1997 to consider the regularization of services of the persons appointed on compassionate grounds and subject to acquiring qualification, only from the date of acquiring the qualification fully for the post to which they have been appointed. By virtue of the

¶44

4

¶45

above said amendment, the persons those who are appointed on compassionate appointment, if any person is not at all acquired the qualification within the stipulated period, if they acquire subsequently, they are entitled for regularization only from the date of acquiring qualification. In the instant case, respondent no.5 has acquired qualification in the year 2017 and accordingly her case has been considered and regularized vide orders dated 29.8.2022 in the said orders, respondent no.4 has considered the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.6.2004 and declared the probation of the individual in the cadre of Junior Assistant w.e.f. 26.6.2018 as the petitioner has acquired the qualification fully by 04.9.2017. Surprisingly, the respondents have also prepared the seniority list on the same day and the petitioner was placed at serial no.1 and unofficial respondent at serial no.3.

¶46

While the things stood thus, surprisingly, by entertaining the representation of the petitioner, the Government has issued the impugned proceedings regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment by relaxing the amendments issued in G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 22.6.2004 is bad in law. Once the competent authority has considered the case of the petitioner in terms of G.O.Ms.No.151 and regularized the services w.e.f. 20.6.2018, the Government ought not to have revised the said regularization from the date of initial appointment.

¶47

5

¶48

Once regularization is done, the question of exercising the relaxation does not arise.

¶49

Reply to the said contention, learned counsel for respondent no.5 made his submissions that respondent no.5 never sought any relaxation. In fact, respondent no.5 agitated her rights since one year and in fact she has made representations from 2002 to 2014 onwards and finally she has made a request/representation on 01.9.2022 i.e. after passing the orders regularizing the services of the petitioner from the date of acquiring qualification and she has brought to the notice of the Government with regard to various orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal and also this High Court. In fact, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on the representation made by the petitioner wherein identical issue has been considered by Tribunal in O.A.No.2201 of 2014 and batch and held that the persons who have acquired qualification of PGDCA are directed to regularize their services without insisting for typewriting qualification from the date of their appointment. Further it was also brought to the notice of the Court in the identical situations, this Court has also considered in W.P.No.17966 of 2020, this Court vide order dated 16.4.2021 allowed and directed to regularize the services of the petitioner therein from the date of initial appointment and also directed to issue consequential benefits also. In W.P.No.14223 of 2021 the same matter disposed of considering the qualification of PGDCA and directed for

¶50

6

¶51

regularization from the date of initial appointment. Further it was also brought to the notice of the authority about the orders passed by Government in G.O.Rt.No.133 dated 16.5.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.7 dated 14.6.2022. The request of respondent no.5 to the Government is only based on the pronouncements of Tribunal as well as this Court and entitlement of the petitioner from the date of initial appointment. While considering the said representation, the Government instead of considering the above referred judgments has passed orders by exercising the power under Rule 31 of A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules. As per the observations of the Tribunal and also this Court in the above referred matters, the persons who acquire the qualification of PGDCA is sufficient and entitled for regularization from the date of initial appointment. In the said circumstances, the impugned orders are in accordance with the orders of this Court and also previous Government orders. Further brought to the notice of the Court on facts also, respondent no.5 was appointed on 03.7.2008. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was appointed on 27.4.2016 and the petitioner’s appointment is more than eight years after the appointment of respondent no.5. Even on that ground, respondent no.5 is senior than the petitioner. 6. Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that in identical circumstances, Government has rejected the case of one Ch.Manjula in terms of

¶52

7

¶53

qualifications prescribed under G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.12.1991 and also G.O.Ms.No.151 dated 08.6.2004. Hence the respondents rejected in certain cases and according benefit to certain persons is a selective discrimination and it cannot be permitted. In the instant case, the respondents have considered and granted relaxation to G.O.Ms.No.151, but the same benefit was accorded to some other persons which is nothing but selective discrimination and requested to set aside the impugned orders on that ground alone.

¶54

Having considered the submissions made by both the counsel, the fact remains that the said issue was already considered by the Tribunal in O.A. and also by this Court in which it is held that for non-acquiring the technical qualifications, if the persons having PGDCA is sufficient and their cases have to be considered for regularization from the date of appointment. In fact on perusal of the representation/request by the petitioner on 01.9.2022 is also only on the ground of the pronouncements of orders of various High Courts and orders in batch in O.A’s. In the said circumstances, as the issue was already decided and considered by this Court in various judgments, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned orders are not contrary to any law. As they have only considered the orders of this Court in other matters and passed the orders. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that there is no selective discrimination of this impugned orders.

¶55

8

¶56