Writ petition by a de-caderised secretary seeking direction to work as Special Category Assistant. Court dismissed petition holding removal order pending challenge prevents reinstatement.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15859 of 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner worked as a Secretary in the Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society (P.A.C.S.), Dhone, Kurnool District. The posts of Paid Secretaries in the P.A.C.S. were de-caderised. The District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 1.3.2009 directing that the de-caderised Secretaries shall work as Special Category Assistants in the District Cooperative Central Bank. A list of 39 persons was appended to the said proceedings. The name of the petitioner figured at Sl. No.22 of the said list. His grievance is that the respondents are not permitting him to work as Special Category Assistant.
On behalf of the respondents, the 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit. According to him, the petitioner was terminated from service through proceedings dated 19.5.2008 and that he is not entitled to any benefit under the order dated 1.3.2009.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Pleader for Cooperation for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent.
It is no doubt true that the name of the petitioner occurs at Sl. No.22 in the list appended to proceedings dated 1.3.2009. The fact however remains that the petitioner was shown as being under suspension; whereas he is said to have been removed from service in the year 2008 itself. Unless the petitioner challenges the orders of removal, the respondents cannot be directed to permit the petitioner to work as Special Category Assistant.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out his remedies vis-a-vis the order of removal. There shall be no order as to costs.
DATE: 12th August, 2011
____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J
pnb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether respondents are liable to permit the petitioner to work as Special Category Assistant given his prior removal from service.
Secretary in P.A.C.S., Dhone
District Cooperative Officer, Kurnool
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
4th Respondent
L. Narasimha Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
