T a Maha Laxmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T A MAHA LAXMI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS D/O T. PEDDANNA ASSITANT EXCUTIVE ENGINEER, R AND B SECTION, BATHALAPALLY, R AND B DIVISION, DHARMAVARAM, SATYA SAI DISTRICT

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT, ROADS AND BUILDINGS DEPT., A.P. SECRETARIATE, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.

¶15

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF ADMN, R AND B DEPARTMENT, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA - 520010.

¶16

SRI D V NARSHIMA REDDY, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B),SUB DIVISION, JAMMALAMADUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT A.P

¶17

SRI VIJAYA CHANDRA REDDY, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (R AND B),SUB DIVISION, RAJAMPETA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT A.P

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

2

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶21

1.VENKATA SUBBAIAH POGULA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶23

1.GP FOR SERVICES II (AP)

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

3

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION No.32837 of 2023

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

This writ petition is filed declaring the proceedings of the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) dated 19.06.2019, whereby the revised final seniority list of 2013 in respect of Assistant Executive Engineers (R&B) (Civil) of Zone-IV was circulated, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer (R & B) through the Public Service Commission and posted at Gajwel-II, Sangareddy Circle, Medak District of ZoneVI. As the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) is a zonal post, the same is to be regulated as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975 (for short, ‘the Presidential Order’).

¶31

4

¶32

Subsequent to the selections, the petitioner has made a request for transfer to Zone-IV on spouse grounds. Considering the same, the respondents have transferred the petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.191, dated 13.08.2009, from Zone-VI to Zone-IV on spouse grounds. While effecting the transfer, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner under para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order provides for transfer of employees on administrative grounds or exigencies. Once the transfers are effected under para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order, the seniority originally assigned has to be reckoned. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for seniority from the date of her appointment. In spite of that, the respondents have prepared the seniority list by reckoning the seniority from the date of her joining in Zone-IV. Therefore, the same is contrary to para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶34

Though a counter has been filed, the respondents have taken the stand that the transfer order itself clearly indicates that the petitioner was transferred and posted from Zone-VI to Zone-

¶35

5

¶36

IV on spouse grounds, subject to the condition to assign the last rank next below the last regular candidate to the individual in the new unit. Though they have mentioned para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order by mistake, the fact remains that the transfer has been made based on the request made by the petitioner, with a condition to assign her the last rank and the same has been accepted and joined. Once the condition was accepted and the petitioner joined, she is not entitled to claim the seniority from the date of her original appointment.

¶37

Considering the above averments and the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, no doubt, as contended by learned counsel, if the transfer is made under para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order for any administrative reasons or exigencies, definitely the petitioner is entitled to seniority from the date of her original appointment. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, undoubtedly, the transfer was made based on the request made by the petitioner on spouse grounds and a specific condition was imposed that her seniority would be reckoned from the date of her joining in the subsequent zone and the same has been accepted. In the said circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the

¶38

6

¶39

petitioner is not entitled to reckon the seniority in terms of para 5(2)(c) of the Presidential Order. Hence, the seniority assigned is in accordance with the rules and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

¶40