Dismissed

D.Golya v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep.byits

Telangana HC17 Apr 2009WP/7565/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed six writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing original applications seeking promotion to Section Officer. The Court held that training periods undertaken on own request for a different cadre do not count towards minimum service requirements and found no error in the Tribunal's dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions are dismissed as they are devoid of merit; no order as to costs.

D.Golya Vs The Government of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO : 7489 of 2009

¶6

Between:

¶7

P.Krishna Mohan S/o.P.Rama Krishna MA & UD Department, AP Secretariat,Hyderabad

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary GA(Ser) Department,. AP secretariat, Hyderabad 2 D.Lalitha Kumari W/o.& Age not Known LET & T Department AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶11

.....RESPONDENT(S)

¶12

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to passing of common orders in OA.No.2200/2008 and Batch dated 31.3.2009 declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, and the ones passed contrary to express provisions under relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently set aside the same as suchand to grant such other relief or relifs as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO : 7490 of 2009

¶14

Between: P.Krishna Mohan S/o. Sri P.Rama Krishna A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

..... PETITIONER

¶16

AND

¶17

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, G.A. (Ser.) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 D.Lalitha Kumari LET & T Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶18

.....RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to passing of common orders in O.A.No.2200/2008 and Batch wherein the O.A.No.3446/2008 is clubbed as one of the batch cases dt.31.03.2009, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and the one passed contrary to express provisions under relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently set aside the same as such and to grant such other relief or relieves.

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO : 7575 of 2009

¶21

Between: P. Krishna Mohan, S/o. Sri P. Rama Krishna, MA & U.D. Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶22

..... PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

1 G. Ramakoti, S/o. G. Ramulu, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, G.A. (Ser.) Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶25

.....RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to passing of common orders in OA No. 2200/2008 and Batch dt.31-3-2009, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and the one passed contrary to express provisions under relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently set aside the same as such and to grant

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO : 7565 of 2009

¶28

Between: D.Golya S/o.Sri Valya Environment , Forest, Science & Technology Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶29

..... PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh,rep. by its Principal Secretary G.A.(Ser) Department. AP Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 D.Lalitha Kumari W/o.& Age Not known LET & T Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶32

.....RESPONDENTS

¶33

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to passing of common orders in OA.No.2200/2008 and Batch dated 31.3.2009 declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, and the one passed contrary to express provisions under relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently set aside the same as such and to grant such other relief or relieves as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO : 7593 of 2009

¶35

Between:

¶36

P. Krishna Mohan, S/o. Sri P. Rama Krishna, M.A. & U.D. Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶37

..... PETITIONER

¶38

AND

¶39

1 G. Ramakoti, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal Secretary, G.A. (Ser.) Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 D. Golya, S/o. Sri Valya, Environment, Forest Science & Technology Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 4 B.Saida, TR & B, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶40

.....RESPONDENTS

¶41

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to call for the records relating to passing of common orders in OA No. 2200/2008 and Batch dt.31-3-2009, declare the same as illegal, arbitrary and the one passed contrary to express provisions under relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relates to the provisions herein and consequently set aside the same as such and to grant

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO : 7584 of 2009

¶43

Between:

¶44

P.Krishna Mohan S/o.P.Rama Krishna M.A & U. D Department, AP Secretariat Hyderabad

¶45

..... PETITIONER

¶46

AND

¶47

1 D.Lalitha Kumari W/o.& age Not known, LET & T Department AP Secretariat, Hyderabad 2 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary G.A.(Ser) Department, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 D.Golya s/o.Valya, Science & Technology Department, AP Secretariat Hyderabad 4 B.Saida S/o.& age Not known, TR &B AP Secretariat, Hyderabad 5 G.Lingya S/o.& Age Not known TR&B AP Secretariat, Hyderabad (Respondents 3 to 5 formal parties in the petition)

¶48

.....RESPONDENTS

¶49

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to call for the records relating to passing of common orders in OA.No.2200/2008 and Batch dated 31.3.2009 declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, and the one passed contrary to express provisions under relevant statutory provisions dealing with the issue involved in so far it relates to the petitioner herein and consequently set aside the same as such and to grant such other relief or relieves as this Hon`ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case

¶50

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.K.RAM REDDY

¶51

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶52

The Court made the following :

¶53

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED

¶54

and

¶55

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY

¶56

W.P.Nos.7489 of 2009, 7490 of 2009, 7575 of 2009, 7565 of 2009, 7593 of 2009 and 7584 of 2009

¶57

COMMON ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed, J)

¶58

Since all these writ petitions arise out of a common order dated 31.3.2009 passed in O.A.No.2200 of 2008, they are being disposed of by this common order.

¶59

2. These writ petitions are filed challenging the orders dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, in dismissing O.A.Nos.2200 of 2008, 3446 of 2008 and 3655 of 2008 which were filed by the petitioners herein to direct the respondent authorities to promote them as Section Officers.

¶60

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed asTypist-cum-Assistant by Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) in the year 2002 along with other ST candidates in the Secretariat. They were temporarily promoted as Assistant Section Officers along with others in 2004 subject to the condition that their date of probation in the category of Assistant Section Officer would commence only after completion of the required minimum service of 3 years in the lower category of Typist-cum-Assistant as per the instructions issued by the Government in Memo dated 9.1.2001 and the petitioners probation would commence in the category of Assistant Section Officer on 5.5.2005. While petitioners working as Assistant Section Officers, on their own request, they were sent to Revenue Department to undergo training as Mandal

¶61

Revenue Inspector which is required for the purpose of consideration for appointment by transfer as Deputy Collector as per the Rules in vogue. After completion of training from 28.12.2005 to 10.1.2008 they came back and reported as Assistant Section Officers. The names of the petitioners were included in the approved panel of Assistant Section Officers for promotion to the post of Section Officer, but their names were removed subsequently, as they were not approved probationers in the category of Assistant Section Officer. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner in W.P.Nos. 7489, 7490, 7575, 7593, 7584 of 2009 filed O.A Nos.2200 of 2008 and 3446 of 2008 and the petitioner in W.P No.7565 of 2009 filed the O.A.No.3665 of 2008. During the pendency of the said O.As, the Tribunal passed interim orders dated 1.5.2008 and 2.5.2008 in O.A.Nos.3446 of 2008 and 3665 of 2008 directing the authorities to promote the petitioners as Section Officers subject to outcome of the O.As. Pursuant to the interim orders, the Government issued proceedings dated 04.07.2008 promoting the petitioners as Section Officers in relaxation of Rule 6 of A.P. Secretariat Services Rules,1998 (for short ‘the Rules’).

¶62

4. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 04.07.2008 of the Government, one G. Ramakoti, Assistant Section Officer, who is one of the respondents in the writ petitions, approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A.No.4966 of 2008 to set-aside the said proceedings and direct the respondent authorities to appoint him as Section Officer.

¶63

5. Ms. D. Lalitha Kumari, Assistant Section Officer, who is one of the respondents in the writ petition also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2448 of 2008 to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not considering her case for inclusion of her name in the panel for the year 2007-2008 for promotion to the post of Section Officer in A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad while including the names of ineligible candidates though she is fully eligible and qualified by reviewing the panel, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct respondent authorities to strictly implement the Rules 6 and 11 of the Rules and consider her case for the said post.

¶64

6. The Tribunal has clubbed all the O.As together and dismissed the O.As filed by the petitioners after extracting relevant service Rules and after elaborately discussing the issues involved therein. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the O.As, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions.

¶65

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri D. Prakash Reddy contends that since the petitioners have been sent to undergo training as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department, their training period has to be counted so as to fulfill the criteria laid down under Rule 6 of the Rules for promotion to the post of Section Officer. The learned senior counsel contends that since pursuant to the interim orders, the Government has relaxed Rule 6 of the Rules and since under Rule 31 of the A.P. State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, the Government is empowered to relax Rules, the orders passed by the Tribunal are erroneous and do not stand to legal scrutiny.

¶66

8. The learned counsel for Ms. D.Lalitha Kumari, who is one of the respondents in the writ petitions submits that since the petitioners are not approved probationers, they are not considered for promotion to the post of Section Officer. The learned counsel submits that the respondent is an approved probationer in the category of Assistant Section Officer and she fulfilled the requirement of minimum service as prescribed under Rule 6 of the Rules. The learned counsel further submits that since the petitioners had undergone training on their own request as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department for the purpose of consideration for appointment as Deputy Collector, the training period cannot be counted for the purpose of declaration of probation and that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioners and there are no reasons to interfere with the same.

¶67

9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Services II submits that when the petitioners did not fulfill the requirement of minimum service under Rule 6 of the Rules for declaring them as approved probationers, they cannot be promoted to the post of Section Officer. However to honour the interim orders of the Tribunal, the Government given temporary promotions to the petitioners subject to the result of the O.As. The learned Government Pleader further submits that since the writ petitioners themselves made a request to undergo training as Revenue Inspectors in the Revenue Department for the purpose of appointment as Deputy Collector, their training period cannot be considered for declaration of probation in the cadre of Assistant Section Officer as the category of Assistant Section Officer is governed by the A.P. Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules and the category of Revenue Inspector is governed by the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules. 10. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal has committed any jurisdictional error.

¶68

11. We have perused the record. It is seen that though the petitioners were earlier promoted to the post of Sections Officers pursuant to the interim orders in the O.As, the Tribunal in its final orders has dismissed the O.As filed by the petitioners vacating

¶69

the interim orders.

¶70

12. It is relevant to extract Rule 6 of the Rules, which reads as under:

¶71

“Minimum Service:- Unless otherwise specified elsewhere in these rules, no person shall be eligible for appointment by transfer or promotion unless he has put in not less than three years of service but in no case shall it be less than two years in the category from which promotion or appointment by transfer is made.

¶72

Provided that in the case of appointment by transfer of Assistant Section Officers including Assistant Section Officer (SC) or Special Category Stenographers in the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Subordinate Service, the minimum service of three years shall be exclusive of any period of service rendered in any Non-Secretariat Department.”

¶73

13. Since the petitioners were deputed to undergo training as Mandal Revenue Inspectors in Revenue Department for consideration of appointment for the post of Deputy Collector on their own request, the authorities have not taken into account the training period of the petitioners for declaration of probation in the category of Assistant Section Officer because the category of Assistant Section Officer is governed by the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Subordinate Service Rules and the category of Revenue Inspector is governed by the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules. When the petitioners are not declared as approved probationers in the category of Assistant Section Officer due to non completion of minimum service as required under Rule 6 of the Rules, the question of promoting the petitioners as Section Officers would not arise. On the other hand, the respondents in the writ petitions, D.Lalitha Kumari and G.Ramakoti who are also applicants before the Tribunal have fulfilled the requirement of minimum service as enunciated under Rule 6 of the Rules and they are eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Section Officer. In the circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶74

14. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and the same are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶75

_____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J

¶76

______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J

¶77

17.04.2009 Stp

¶78

..... REGISTRAR

¶79

// TRUE COPY //