Petitioner challenged the retroactivity of a government order upgrading his post. The Court rejected the claim due to policy principles granting prospective effect and the petitioner's fifteen-year delay without representation, dismissing the writ petition as untenable.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No. 2676 OF 2006.
DATED 20th January, 2011.
BETWEEN
Sri M. Shyam Sunder Rao
And
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors.
….Respondents.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
WRIT PETITION No. 2676 OF 2006.
ORDER:
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 3.
The petitioner was initially appointed as Field Assistant in Rural Banking in the second respondentcollege by proceedings dated 18.7.1984., Later his
services were regularized with effect from 19.7.1984 and probation was also declared in the same post on 28.8.1986. While so, the petitioner made a representation to the second respondent for absorption of his services in the post of Lecturer in Commerce and pursuant to the recommendation made by the second respondent for absorption of the petitioner in the post of Lecturer in Commerce in view of his qualification and vacancy position, the first respondent by proceedings dated 15.2.1990 rejected the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed appeal before the Government. During the pendency of the said appeal before Government, apprehending that the said post would be filled up by another candidate, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 7850 of 1991. This Court by order dated 30.3.1992 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the State Government to consider and dispose of the appeal and representation filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to the said orders of the this Court, and recommendations of the Osmania University, University Grants Commission and College Service Commission, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No. 137, dated 16.6.1993, upgranding the post of Field Assistant
held by the petitioner to the post of Lecturer in commerce with effect from 16.6.1993 and the first respondent issued consequential proceedings in Rc.No. 6116/PC.III-3/88, dated 27.8.1993, to that effect. Now, the only grievance of the petitioner is that instead of upgrading the post of Field Assistant held by him from the date of his appointment i.e. 19.7.1984, orders were issued upgrading the post held by him from the date of issuance of the orders by the Government i.e. 16.6.1993, which is illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner that while he was working as Field Assistant, he was asked to discharge the duties of Lecturer in commerce and hence he is entitled to be upgraded from the post of Field Assistant to the Post of Lecturer in Commerce with effect from 19.7.1984.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is not disputed as to the appointment of the petitioner as Field Assistant in Rural Banking in the second respondent-college and up gradation of the said post to the post of Lecturer in Commerce with effect from the date of issuance of G.O.Ms.No. 137, dated 16.6.1993. However, with regard to the up gradation of said post from the date of issuance of the government order dated 16.6.1993 and not from the
date of 19.7.1994, it is stated in the paragraph 4 of the Counter affidavit that immediately after issuance of the said government order and proceedings, the petitioner has not made any representation for issuance of suitable orders and that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of fifteen years. It is further stated that the Government has a matter of policy issuing orders approving the selection of candidates in teaching and non-teaching in aided colleges and admission to grant-in-aid under direct recruitment/absorption, with prospective effect only.
From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached the authorities immediately after the issuance of the Government Order and consequential proceedings thereon, upgrading post of Field Assistant held by him to the post of Lecturer in Commerce. Further, the petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of fifteen years and on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. Merely because the petitioner has discharged the duties of Lecturer in Commerce while in feeder post, that itself does not create any right to seek up-gradation of the post from the date of initial appointment. Further, it is well settled that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, normally, will not interfere with the policy decisions of the Government, unless such a policy decision is contrary to law or is tainted by malafides or is against public interest. No material, as such, is placed before this Court to show that the said policy decision of the government is tainted with malafides or contrary to law. In that view of the matter the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed.
The Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
Dated 20th January, 2011. Msnro
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner discharged duties of a higher post after regularization is entitled to upgradation of service from the date of initial appointment.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Government's policy decision to grant upgradation with prospective effect only.
Whether a delay of fifteen years in approaching the Court warrants dismissal of a writ petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri M. Shyam Sunder Rao
The Commissioner of Collegiate Education, Andhra Pradesh
Ashutosh Mohunta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
