Allowed

The Deputy Director, v. B. Srinivasa Rao

Telangana HC20 Oct 2011WP/15010/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the Administrative Tribunal's decision to set aside an order surrendering a regularised, promoted employee. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's reliance on Bhagwati Prasad, noting that regularisation protects an employee from being surrendered despite initial qualification deficiencies.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs; the Tribunal's order is upheld.

The Deputy Director, Vs B. Srinivasa Rao — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.15010 OF 2009 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶3

The Writ Petition filed by the Deputy Director, District Treasury Office, Guntur, and three others is against the order dated 17.12.2008 in O.A.No.6871 of 2001 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (Tribunal), whereby and where under the learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the respondent herein (hereafter, the applicant) setting aside the proceedings of the first petitioner (hereafter the respondent) surrendering the applicant to the District Collector.

¶4

The fact of the matter to the extent necessary for disposal of the Writ Petition, in brief, is as follows. The applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds in 1988. He was initially allotted to the Department of Animal Husbandry. So as to reallocate the super numerous staff, the District Collector transferred the applicant to the District Treasury Office (DTO). The applicant worked in the said organisation, completed his probation and his services were regularised. He was also promoted as a Senior Accountant. In the mean while, it appears, when the request was made to the Government to relax qualifications in favour of the applicant, the Government vide memo, dated 20.08.1996, rejected the proposal. Three years thereafter, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 28.09.2001 (impugned in the O.A.), surrendered the applicant to the District Magistrate and Collector, Guntur, for giving appropriate posting orders.

¶5

The applicant assailed the order of surrender, inter alia, contending that his services were regularised; he was promoted in DTO and therefore, he cannot be surrendered after a lapse of about eight years; he was never warned with regard to acquiring

¶6

the qualifications; and that he cannot be surrendered to the District Collector only on the ground that he does not possess the qualifications.

¶7

The petitioners herein opposed the O.A. mainly on the ground that the applicant does not possess the qualifications for being posted as Junior Accountant. The learned Tribunal relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad v Delhi State Mineral Development Corporatio n [1] and came to the conclusion that when the applicant’s services are already regularised and he was promoted, subsequently he cannot be surrendered. In this regard,

¶8

the learned Tribunal observed as under.

¶9

Once regularisation orders have been issued by the competent authority, the same cannot be cancelled or altered by the same authority or the higher authority, the applicant is entitled to be continued in the Treasuries Department and he cannot be posted back to the Animal Husbandry Department, having been regularised in the post of Junior Accountant and having been promoted as Senior Accountant in the Treasuries Department.

¶10

The Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II

¶11

reiterates the position as was pleaded before the learned Tribunal. This is refuted by the counsel for other side.

¶12

The learned Tribunal relied on Bhagwati Prasad’s case,

¶13

wherein it was held as under.

¶14

The initial minimum educational qualification prescribed for the different posts is undoubtedly a factor to be reckoned with, but it is so at the time of initial entry into the service. Once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualifications.

¶15

In this case, the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds in November 1988. At the relevant time, for the post of Junior Accountant in the office of DTO, the qualification was a pass in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education. Subsequently, by G.O.Ms.No.354

¶16

Finance And Planning (FW. ADMN.I) Department, dated 27.11.1989, another qualification namely a pass in Typewriting Higher Grade Examination in English conducted by the Director of Technical Education was added. From this, it becomes clear that when the applicant was appointed in November 1988, the requirement of passing Typewriting Higher Grade Examination in English was not there. Though he was initially appointed in Animal Husbandry Department so as to adjust superfluous vacancies, he was sent to DTO. If only the applicant had been appointed initially in the DTO itself, the question of lack of qualifications would not have arisen. Therefore, we are convinced that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any error warranting interference. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶18

___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J)

¶19

20^th October 2011 RRB

¶20

[1] AIR 1990 SC 371

The Deputy Director, v. B. Srinivasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Deputy Director, v. B. Srinivasa Rao

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

The Commissioner, Vs S. Rajendra Prasada Rao

M.Gangadharam Vs The Government of Ap., rep.by its Principal secretary

Kotte Nageswara Rao Vs The Principal,Government Junior COllege, Charla

M. Ramakrishnaiah Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Smt.Puvvada Suseelamma,Prakasam Dist,and 5 Vs Ongole MUN,COMM,ONGOLE,AND2

Chitteti Suneetha Vs The District Collector and Chairman of