Dismissed

S. Durga Prasad Rao v. A.P. State Housing Corporation

Telangana HC22 Apr 2010WP/11904/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an appointment of a senior officer to an in-charge post, alleging violation of departmental circulars and natural justice. The district collector had cancelled the impugned order. The Supreme Court noted a subsequent circular dispensing with in-charge arrangements and declined to issue a positive direction to fill the post, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No positive direction to continue petitioner in vacancy as question of suitability due to in-charge dispensation ceased to arise; petition dismissed.

S. Durga Prasad Rao Vs A.P. State Housing Corporation — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶2

Dated 22-4-2010

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.11904 OF 2009

¶4

Between:

¶5

S. Durga Prasad Rao.

¶6

…Petitioner.

¶7

And:

¶8

A.P. State Housing Corporation, represented by the District Collector/Executive Director, (Housing) Warangal District, Warangal and others.

¶9

……Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

WRIT PETITION No.11904 OF 2009

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 1^st respondent in giving in-charge position to the 3^rd respondent in the place of the petitioner who is far junior to the petitioner, vide proceedings No.C1/1560/2008, dated 16-6-2009 as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and contrary to circular No.A2/8136/2008, dated 4-6-2009 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in the existing vacancy.

¶14

The case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:

¶15

The petitioner was initially appointed as Work Inspector (Technical) and joined at Warangal in the month of February, 1985 in the respondent-Corporation. On 16-2-2002, he was promoted as Assistant Engineer and posted to Kamalapur Section of Karimnagar District as Assistant Engineer, Housing in the existing

¶16

vacancy. In the year 2004, he was transferred as Assistant Engineer, Housing to Maripeda Section in Warangal District and from May, 2007 onwards, he has been working in the present place as Assistant Engineer i.e., Ghanpur Station, Warangal.

¶17

Due to poor performance in Indiramma Housing Works by certain Deputy Executive Engineers Housing, they were called to the Head Office and directed to hand over complete charge of their sub-division to the Executive Engineer (Housing)/Assistant Engineer (Housing) as shown against their names vide proceedings Rc.No.C1/1560/2008-3, dated 30-5-2009. Accordingly, the petitioner was given full additional charge of Ghanpur Station Sub-Division. Since some vacancies arose, the Respondent-Corporation has issued a circular No.A2/8136/2008 dated 4-6-2009 for filling up of the vacancies and the Corporation has decided to fill up the vacancies at District levels on in-charge basis and laid certain principles wherein it was mentioned that the Senior most Assistant Engineer working within the District (but not in projects) should be posted against the vacant post in the Deputy Executive Engineer Cadre. Prior to the issuance of the above circular, the petitioner has been given full additional charge of Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing) Ghanpur Station SubDivision vide proceedings in Rc.No.C1/1560/2008-3 dated 30-52009 by the 1^st respondent-Corporation. Consequently, the 1^st respondent-Corporation issued proceedings No.C1/1560/2008, dated 16-6-2009 transferring the 3^rd respondent to Ghanpur Station Sub/ Division and posted as In-chage Deputy Executive Engineer (Housing) wherein the petitioner has been given full additional charge on 30-5-2009 onwards. If the impugned order dated 16-6-2009 is allowed to be continued and if the 3^rd respondent assumes charge, it amounts to violation of circular dated 4-6-2009 and against the principles of natural justice and thereby, the petitioner will be put to irreparable

¶18

loss and hardship. Hence, this Writ Petition.

¶19

On 21-4-2010, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the present writ petition is filed questioning giving in-charge position to the 3^rd respondent in place of petitioner and the Department has issued proceedings canceling the same.

¶20

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has placed a circular Rc.No.A2/8136/2008 dated 25-2-2010 before this Court stating that filling up of the Deputy Executive Engineer Posts with In-charge arrangements are dispensed with and hence, the question of claiming right by the petitioner to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer, does not arise.

¶21

The relevant portion of the circular dated 25-2-2010 reads as follows:

¶22

“Hence, all the project Directors (Housing) are directed dispense with all the I/c Dy. Executive Engineer arrangements without any exception immediately and ensure that no post of Dy. Executive Engineer is filled by I/c arrangements. Action is being taken at the state level to fill up the posts of Dy. Executive Engineers/or making in-charge arrangements.”

¶23

Apart from that, it is also submitted by the learned Sanding Counsel that the Department has taken steps to fill up the post of Deputy Executive Engineer on the basis of seniority and the case of the petitioner will be considered according to the seniority.

¶24

In view of the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel and in view of the circular dated 25-2-2010, no positive direction can be given to the petitioner by declaring the impugned order as null and void.

¶25

With the above observation, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶26

__________________________

¶27

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶28

Dated 22-4-2010.

¶29

Dvs

¶30

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶31

WRIT PETITION No.11904 OF 2009

¶32

Dated 22-4-2010

S. Durga Prasad Rao v. A.P. State Housing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Durga Prasad Rao v. A.P. State Housing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Kolla Venkat Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Mohd.Mujtaba Hussain Vs The Government of India.,rep.by the Secretary

Sri K.R. Reddy Vs The Honble Industrial Tribunal - II

V. Ravinder, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers

B.Ramu Vs The Commanding Officer, Ins Circars

Gaddam Navamani Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Transport Corporation