Dismissed

The A.P. state Coop Societies Secretaries and Employees Union, v. a.P., Coop Central Bank Employees Associations Regd.No.B

Telangana HC22 Jun 2010WP/6733/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a 50% quota for Category-VII employees in Category-V posts. The Court held that fixation of recruitment ratios is a policy matter for the State and cannot be substituted by the Court absent a statutory or fundamental right.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of without any grant of reliefs or modification of the recruitment policy.

The A.P. state Coop Societies Secretaries and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 6733 of 1999

¶3

O R D E R:

¶4

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective Cooperative Central Banks.

¶5

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner, A.P. Cooperative Central Banks Employees’ Association, a registered body, is espousing the cause of employees of the A.P. Cooperative Central Banks. It solicits writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fill up the posts of 50% of Category-V from among the eligible employees of Category-VII. In other words, the writ petitioner solicits providing a channel of recruitment to the employees working in Category VII by way of promotion to Category V and they also seek reservation of 50% of the vacancies in Category V.

¶6

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has pointed out that while formulating the promotional policy for the employees of the Central Cooperative Banks, the State Government has taken a policy decision for regulating the common cadre. Through G.O.Rt.No. 773, Food and Agriculture, (Coop. III) Department, dated 28.06.1983, the State Government permitted the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to issue instructions to the respective Cooperative Central Banks, enabling the recruitment of Category V personnel to be recruited as such from amongst the Paid Secretaries and other eligible in-service employees in the ratio of 9:1. Thus, out of every ten vacancies, nine vacancies have been earmarked for the pool of Paid Secretaries while one goes to the rest of the eligible in-service employees. Subsequently, the State Government again has taken a policy decision and announced the same through their G.O.Ms.No. 521 Agriculture and Cooperation

¶7

(CCOP.III) Department, dated 28.09.1993 changing the ratio of recruitment from 9:1 to 5:4:1 to all the posts in Category V i.e. Supervisors, Clerks, etcetera by resorting to direct recruitment from open market to the extent of five out of ten vacancies and from the pool of Paid Secretaries to the extent of four out of ten and the remaining solitary slot from the pool of the eligible in-service employees. The legality and validity of this policy decision of the State Government through their G.O.Ms.No. 521 Agriculture and Cooperation (CCOP.III) Department, dated 28.09.1993 has fallen for consideration before a Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 17070 of 1993. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy (as His Lordships then was) speaking for the Division Bench, upon a careful analysis of the facts and the legal regime, has come to the conclusion that the Paid Secretaries working in Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies in the State do not have any independent legal right to insist for their selection/appointment into Category V posts of District Cooperative Central Banks. Further, they are the employees of the concerned Cooperative Societies and in law, they are not entitled to move out from the service of the one society to the service of the another society. The right, if any for such lateral movement has come through the policy decision of the State Government. Therefore, the learned Judges of the Division Bench have come to the conclusion that no case was made out for any departure from the ratio laid down. Further, earlier thereto, another Division Bench had also considered the validity of the policy decision announced through G.O.Ms.No. 521, dated 29.09.1993 in Writ Petition No. 2676 of 1994. Justice N.Y. Hanumanthappa (as he then was) also came to the conclusion that fixing of ratio both in respect of direct recruitment and promotions is purely a matter of policy domain of the State and the Court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the policy

¶8

maker, but however, the learned Judges have left it open for the State to take into account all relevant parameters and appropriately seek measures for redressing any grievance of the employees.

¶9

From the perusal of the judgments referred to supra by the two separate Division Benches, it becomes crystal clear that fixation of an appropriate ratio in the process of recruitment to the posts in Category V is an issue falling in the policy domain of the State. In the absence of any legal right, statutory or fundamental, the policy decision of the State cannot be substituted with the decision of the Court. What should be the proportion under which each source of recruitment should be regulated is dependant upon several important factors, including the nature of the job required of the promotional post, the responsibilities which the incumbent was required to shoulder and the grasp of its requirements in the feeder categories. These are all the questions, which can be examined by any policy maker, by taking into account all the relevant and appropriate factors. If the writ petitioner association makes out any such case warranting appropriate modification of the ratio amongst various feeder categories, the State and its agencies will surely look into it, so that if a review of their policy decision is required or called upon, they may undertake it.

¶10

With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶11

---------------------------------(NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J)

¶12

22^nd June 2010

¶13

ksld

The A.P. state Coop Societies Secretaries and Employees Union, v. a.P., Coop Central Bank Employees Associations Regd.No.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The A.P. state Coop Societies Secretaries and Employees Union, v. a.P., Coop Central Bank Employees Associations Regd.No.B

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vazzala Vishnu Prasad Rao Vs Mamidipally Kamalanath Rao

K.M.S.Rama Rao, Vs The Managing Director

M.Jogaiah Vs District Collector.,Nalgonda

Korada Krishna , S/o. late Ramulu Vs The District Collector

A.P. Cooperative Central Bank Employees Association Vs The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

C.Chandrasekhar Reddy Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Handlooms Weavers