Dismissed

Lankapalli Satya Rao v. The Commissioner and Director

Telangana HC24 Aug 2011WP/12354/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the termination of a temporary Estate Officer appointed on a fixed salary without service rules. The High Court held that such an appointment did not create vested rights and termination without notice was permissible due to lack of qualifications. The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

No. The writ petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Lankapalli Satya Rao Vs The Commissioner and Director — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION Nos. 30009 and 12354 of 2010

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was appointed as an Estate Officer for Gopalapatnam Rythu Bazaar in Visakhapatnam District by the District Supply Officer, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.4 herein, through proceedings, dated 26.09.2000. The appointment was on a consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/- and against a vacancy caused on account of the absence of regular incumbent. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.12354 of 2010 alleging that the respondents are preventing him from discharging the duties as Estate Officer without passing any orders. In W.P.M.P.No.15581 of 2010, this Court directed the respondents to pass orders as regards the status of the petitioner. In compliance with the same, the Joint Collector, Visakhapatnam, respondent No.2 herein, passed an order, dated 30.09.2010, informing the petitioner that his services were terminated through proceedings, dated 21.09.2009. The petitioner challenges the order, dated 30.09.2010. He contends that no notice was issued to him before the order of termination was passed, much less the order of termination was served upon him. Other grounds are also urged.

¶5

On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the appointment of the petitioner was itself untenable, since he did not hold the requisite qualifications and that it was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment that it is on consolidated pay and it is not covered by any service regulations.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶7

Government Pleader for Agriculture for respondent No.1 and the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶8

A perusal of the order, dated 26.09.2000, discloses that the appointment of the petitioner was made on account of the fact that the regular Estate Officer was absent from 16.08.2000 onwards. The manner in which the choice has fallen upon the petitioner is not clear. The order discloses that the appointment was on consolidated amount of Rs.3,000/- and that the services are not governed by any Service Rules or Conduct Rules. It was further mentioned that he is liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons.

¶9

It is no doubt true that issuance of notice is necessary even where an individual is appointed on temporary basis. Those, however, are the cases where the posts are filled by the competent authority with eligible persons and the process of selection is followed. In the instant case, the averment of the respondents that the petitioner does not hold the qualifications prescribed for the post of Estate Officer is not denied. Further, it was on a consolidated salary of Rs.3,000/-. The person, who was already occupying the post, was not dismissed from service. The arrangement was on account of the absence of the regular incumbent. The nature and character of such appointment does not get altered simply because the petitioner continued in such a status for quite a substantial period.

¶10

The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents discloses that the conduct of the petitioner while in service was far from satisfactory. They did not invoke those grounds for termination. They have simply informed the petitioner that his services are no longer necessary. Therefore, it cannot be stated that the petitioner

¶11

had suffered any prejudice or that any rights vested in him are violated.

¶12

Hence, the writ petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.08.2011 kdl

Lankapalli Satya Rao v. The Commissioner and Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lankapalli Satya Rao v. The Commissioner and Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohd. Omar Farooq Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

K.Seshadri Naidu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rachapudi Peda Chinnaiah Vs Adult Education Welfare Society

Avuluri Venkata Ramanamma Vs The District Collector and Chairman

Kilari Venkaiah Vs Kilari Venu

M. Pardhasaradhi Rao Vs Sri Kesava and Mahalakshmi Ammavari Temple