D Sreenivas Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D SREENIVAS REDDY, S/O SRI D.CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. WORKING AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (NOW ON PROMOTION AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MARKETING) O/O. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GUNTUR.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURAL AND CO-OPERATION(MKTG.) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, A.R SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, CHUTTUGUNTA, OLD MIRCHI YARD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SRI I NARAYANA, S/O LATE SUBBA RAMAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(AM),VIZIANAGARAM

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ Of Mandamus to declare the action of 1st respondent in not posting me as EE upon promotion in the post of EE in Government Service (Marketing Department) in Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing/HOD, Guntur instead posting me as EE upon promotion on deputation in Central Market Fund Service at Kadapa and promoting 3rd respondent (whose name is

¶18

2

¶19

included as reserve in the approved DPC proceedings dt. 22-08- 2024) as EE and posting as EE in Government Service at Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Guntur as illegal arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law by setting aside the promotion accorded to 3rd respondent (whose name is included as reserve in the approved DPC proceedings dt. 22-08-2024) and impugned part of G.O.Rt.No.553, Agriculture and Cooperation(Mktg-ll) dated 31-8- 2024 and consequently direct 1st respondent herein to appoint me as Executive Engineer in Government Service at Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Guntur in cancellation of promotion accorded as EE and posting given as EE in Government service at office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing through GO Rt. 553 dated 31-8- 2024 to 3rd Respondent pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶21

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 pleased to direct thelst and 2nd respondents to allow me to assume charge as EE in Government Service at Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing/ HOD, Guntur and pass

¶22

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶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 pleased to suspend the impugned part of G.O.Rt.No.553, AgrI. and Co-Operation (Mktg.- II) dt.31- 8-2024 and pass

¶24

IA NO: 3 OF 2024

¶25

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 issue an order or direction for protection of the panel year that is going to be ceased on afternoon hours of the 31.12.2024 and pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

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 orders passed in

¶28

3

¶29

W.P.No.20659/24 Dt; 19.09.2024 and dismiss the Writ Petition in the interest of justice and pass

¶30

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶31

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 Honble High Court be pleased to permit the petitioner to bring the above facts to the notice of this Honble High Court, by filing this additional affidavit and to pass

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶33

1.K KOUTILYA

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶35

1.GP FOR SERVICES II

¶36

2.P V RAMANA

¶37

The Court made the following:

¶38

4

¶39

ORDER:

¶40

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶41

“…. to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of 1st respondent in not posting me as EE upon promotion in the post of EE in Government Service (Marketing Department) in Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing/HOD, Guntur instead posting me as EE upon promotion on deputation in Central Market Fund Service at Kadapa and promoting 3rd respondent (whose name is included as reserve in the approved DPC proceedings dt.22-8-2024) as EE and posting as EE in Government Service at Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Guntur as illegal arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law by setting aside the promotion accorded to 3rd respondent (whose name is included as reserve in the approved DPC proceedings dt.22-8-2024) and impugned part of G.O.Rt.No.553, Agriculture and Co-operation(Mktg-ll) dt.31-82024 and consequently direct 1^st respondent herein to appoint me as Executive Engineer in Government Service at Office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Guntur in cancellation of promotion accorded as EE and posting given as EE in Government service at office of the Director of Agricultural Marketing through GO Rt.553 dated 31-8-2024 to 3^rd Respondent pass ….”

¶42

Heard Sri N.Subbarao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.Koutilya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶43

Aggrieved by the orders dated 31.8.2024 of respondent no.1, the present Writ Petition is filed. The grievance of the petitioner is that, while considering the seniority of the petitioner along with others especially respondent no.3 placing him in the screening committee‟s

¶44

5

¶45

meeting held on 22.8.2024 based on Annual Confidential Reports (for short ACRs), relevant record and other materials of the eligible Deputy Executive Engineers (marketing) as per the seniority list and after making overall assessment of their service record and work done, recommended the names of petitioner as well as respondent no.3 for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Andhra Pradesh Marketing services, Agriculture and Cooperation (Mktg-I) Department for the panel year 2023-24. Admittedly, as per the recommendations of the screening committee, the respondents have effected promotions vide G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 31.8.2024 and accordingly, the names of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 was placed before the DPC for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (marketing) for the panel year 2023-24. Based on the recommendations of the screening committee and DPC, the Government has approved the names of the petitioner and respondent no.3 for the post of Executive Engineers.

¶46

Basing on the above approval orders, respondent no.1 has issued posting orders through G.O.Rt.No.553 dated 31.8.2024 wherein the case of the petitioner was considered and posted as Executive Engineer, Kadapa, under Central Marketing Fund (CMF) on deputation replacing Mr. K.Venkateswara Rao, Executive Engineer (Marketing, Kadapa) who is now retired. Considering the case of respondent no.3

¶47

6

¶48

he was posted as Executive Engineer at head office under Government Service. Assailing the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶49

Learned senior counsel Sri N.Subbarao, appearing on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner has made his submissions that the petitioner is the senior most Deputy Executive Engineer who is eligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and accordingly, screening committee has considered the case of the petitioner in its meeting held on 22.8.2024 and recommended the case of the petitioner with remarks as „Included‟. As far as respondent no.3 is concerned though he is junior and eligible, but the screening committee has included his name as reserve. In the said circumstances, though he has no grievance with regard to effecting promotions to unofficial respondent, but while giving posting based on the promotions, the petitioner‟s case has to be considered in the existing regular vacancy available in the department instead of considering the junior person.

¶50

Further, learned senior counsel has submitted that as per the Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.407 Food, Agriculture (Agri-IV) dated 31.8.1984 the method of appointment to the post of Executive Engineer is included at seniority no.8. Rule 2(i) in the said G.O. deals

¶51

7

¶52

with by promotion of Deputy Executive Engineer and Rule 2(iv) deals with deputation of Executive Engineer from Roads and Buildings, Irrigation and power, public Health, Panchayat Raj and Marketing Departments, if no qualified and suitable candidates are available for appointment by promotion. Further it also clarifies that must have been working as Assistant Executive Engineer in concerned Departments. According to the said rule, for posting on deputation, one should have worked as Executive Engineer in the parent department. Accordingly, the impugned orders are contrary to the rules as the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 was promoted and immediately after promotion directly posted as Executive Engineer on deputation. Hence the same is contrary to the above. Further learned senior counsel also places reliance on various orders passed by this Court with regard to the present post. Initially one Mr. Venkateswararao filed writ petition for accommodating him in the existing post at head office vide W.P.No.19367 of 2024 and the said Writ Petition was disposed of on 29.10.2024 directing the respondents to place the said person at head office as Executive Engineer. The said orders were implemented by the Government and he retired on 31.10.2024. As the said orders are effecting the promotion of respondent no.3, he filed W.A.No.903 of 2024 and got suspended the

¶53

8

¶54

orders passed by the Coordinate bench. By that time Sri Venkateswararao who got accommodated in the head office in the existing vacancy and subsequently he got retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2024. One C.Sampath Babu who is working as Deputy Executive Engineer in C.M.F, has approached this Court claiming promotion to the existing post of Executive Engineer in C.M.F. Department as he is senior most in that department. Considering the submissions, said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and representation dated 30.7.2024 and pass appropriate orders. As there are several claims with regard to the existing Executive Engineer post at C.M.F Department, the posting of the petitioner on deputation affect the rights of the petitioner. If the respondents have considered the case of C.Sampath Babu, who is senior most in C.M.F.Department, the posting of petitioner would effect. Hence as the petitioner being the senior most in marketing Department, he may be considered in the existing vacancy at head of the department.

¶55

Reply to the said contentions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has submitted that the Writ Petition itself is not maintainable as the promotions were affected by the respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 31.8.2024 and without questioning the main

¶56

9

¶57

orders, the petitioner is not entitled to question the consequential orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.553 dated 31.8.2024. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel has relied on G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 31.8.2024 wherein based on the recommendations of the Commissioner dated 05.01.2024, the matter has been placed before the screening committee and as per the recommendations of the screening committee, the matter has been placed before the Departmental promotion committee on 27.8.2024 and based on the recommendations of the DPC, respondent no.1 Government has considered and approved the promotion of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 vide G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 31.8.2024. Hence as the promotion to the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 was approved vide G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 31.8.2024, without assailing the said G.O., the petitioner is not entitled to question the consequential G.O. On that ground, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed.

¶58

Further he has also made his submissions that the petitioner has stopped to question the impugned orders on the ground that the petitioner has made a request vide representation dated 27.8.2024. In the said representation, the petitioner has categorically requested the respondents to consider his case as an executive engineer, on deputation in C.M.F.post. The said request has been acted upon by

¶59

10

¶60

the respondents and issued proceedings vide G.O.Rt.No.553 dated 31.8.2024. Once the respondents have considered the request made by the petitioner and passed the impugned orders posting the petitioner as Executive Engineer on deputation to C.M.F, he ought not to have questioned the impugned orders on the grounds of illegality. Though learned senior counsel has brought to the notice of the Court that the said request letter has been withdrawn vide letter dated 11.9.2024, but the same has already been worked out by the impugned orders. Hence the subsequent withdrawal would not affect the impugned orders.

¶61

Learned counsel further submitted that in fact the petitioner has made a request on 27.8.2024 only to accommodate Venkateswararao in the existing post at head office as the said Venkateswararao is going to retire shortly. If that is to be taken in to consideration, the same analogy also be extended to respondent no.3 as he is also going to retire on 31.5.2026. But as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is having long tenure. Even after retirement of respondent no.3, the petitioner may be accommodated in the existing vacancy at head office. It is further brought to the notice of the Court through a memo that by virtue of the status quo order, the petitioner was continued and further he was also given additional charge of A.P. Market fed in

¶62

11

¶63

addition to his regular duties and the same has been accepted by the petitioner and worked. Hence the question of sending the petitioner on deputation to other department would not arise. It is an admitted fact that all the three departments are interconnected and accordingly, the staff were adjusted basing on the needs of the departments by way of an administrative method. In fact, Sri Venkateswararao who has worked as Executive Engineer in the head office that too in C.M.F. Department for more than 19 years. Hence this is not first time. There are instances that all the staff of three departments were adjusted basing on the needs. Hence the impugned orders are passed based on the request made by the petitioner. Now he cannot question the impugned orders as illegal and contrary to rules. Further he also submitted that respondent no.3 is going to retire by the end of May 2026 and on that ground he may be promoted and continued till his retirement as per the posting orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.553 dated 31.8.2024.

¶64

Reply to the said contentions, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that once the petitioner is posted and joined as per the impugned orders, he may not be able to come back to the regular post. Learned senior counsel has submitted that though he has not disputed about the request made based on the

¶65

12

¶66

circumstances on 27.8.2024 but while effecting promotions and posting the petitioner, they should aware to the rules more specifically rules issued G.O.Ms.No.407 dated 31.8.1984.

¶67

Learned Government Pleader has made his arguments basing on the averments made in the counter and he also stated that the impugned orders have been passed based on the representation made by the petitioner and also taking the circumstances that respondent no.3 is going to retire by the end of May 2026.

¶68

Considering the submissions made by all the counsel, though there is force in the submissions made by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as the impugned orders are contrary to the rules posting the petitioner as Executive Engineer at C.M.F. Department but the fact remains that the impugned orders are passed based on the request made by the petitioner on 27.8.2024. Now the grievance of the petitioner as well as respondent no.3 is only with regard to postings and as the orders were passed by considering the request made by the petitioner and he was accommodated as Executive Engineer, Kadapa under Central Marketing Fund service and also taking note of the age of retirement of respondent no.3, this Court is inclined to modify the interim orders by directing the respondents to permit respondent no.3 as per impugned proceedings

¶69

13

¶70

vide G.O.Rt.No.553 dated 31.8.2024. After retirement of respondent no.3, respondent no.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for accommodating him as Executive Engineer at head office.

¶71