Allowed

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, v. K. Shyam Sunder

Telangana HC23 Sept 2013WP/27290/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order quashed orders passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal directing the transfer and posting of a Panchayat Raj engineer. The Supreme Court held that posting decisions are within the administrative authority's prerogative and interfered with noed record.

What did the court decide?

Tribunal orders dated 11.06.2013 and 21.06.2013 in O.A.Nos.3888 and 4778 of 2013 set aside.

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Vs K. Shyam… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.27291 and 27290 of 2013

¶4

COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram)

¶5

Assailing the correctness of the orders dated 11.06.2013 and 21.06.2013 in O.A.Nos.3888 and 4778 of 2013 respectively, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad Bench (in short “the Tribunal”), the 1^st petitioner-Engineer-In-Chief, Panchayat Raj, Hyderabad, filed W.P.Nos.27291 and 27290 of 2013 respectively.

¶6

O.A. Nos. 3888 and 4778 of 2013 were filed by the 1^st respondent-K.Shyamsunder before the Tribunal aggrieved by the action of the 1^st petitioner in not acceding to the request of the 1^st respondent to transfer and post him at PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda.

¶7

The grievance of the 1^st respondent as espoused in the O.As., is to the effect that the petitioners, for the reasons best known to them, had not considered his request to post him at PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda, in spite of the fact that there is a clear vacancy available on account of the transfer of one M.Venkateswara Rao. The request made by him is on account of the fact that his wife is working as Medical Officer at Neredcherla Mandal and the same is near to the PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda. It is his further case that in spite of the orders of the Tribunal dated 26.03.2013 passed in O.A.No.1980 of 2013, the unofficial respondent in O.A.No.3888 of 2013 was posted at Miryalaguda. Aggrieved by the action of the petitioners, the 1^st respondent filed O.A.No.3888 of 2013 seeking to set aside or quash the proceedings issued by the 1^st petitioner in Proceeding No.D(6)/4483/2013, dated 15.05.2013, on that the Tribunal had passed the following:

¶8

“Pending disposal of the O.A., there shall be a direction to respondents to concede the second request of the applicant for posting him at PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda and pass appropriate orders within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of this Order”

¶9

Questioning the same, 1^st petitioner filed W.P.No.27291 of 2013. However, pursuant to the above interim order, the 1^st petitioner passed a detailed order vide proceedings No.D(6)5772/2013, dated 18.06.2013, rejecting the claim of the 1^st respondent to post him at PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda.

¶10

Since the above order has not been complied by the petitioners, the 1^st respondent once again filed O.A.No.4778 of 2013, before the Tribunal, and that the Tribunal had directed the 1^st petitioner to send proposals to the 4^th petitioner for posting the 1^st respondent as Deputy Executive Engineer, PRI Sub-Division, Miryalguda, Nalgonda District, by recalling the proposals sent with respect to A.Harihara Prasad, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.27290 of 2013 has been filed by the petitioners herein.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The interim order passed in O.A.No.3888 of 2013 is a positive direction, virtually directing the petitioners to post the 1^st respondent in PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda. In our considered opinion no such direction could be passed by the Tribunal, as it is wholly within the power and jurisdiction of the appointing and administrative authority’s prerogative to decide the same. However, the authorities took the order in a more positive sense and had read the word “concede” as a typographical error in place of “consider” and thus had passed a detailed order viz., Proceedings No.D(6)/5772/2013, dated

¶13

18.06.2013, whereunder the request of the 1^st respondent was rejected. However, the Tribunal, vide its orders dated 26.06.2013, passed in O.A.No.4778 of 2013, had found fault with the petitioners for not obeying the interim order passed on 11.06.2013 in O.A.No.3888 of 2013 and opined that the petitioners had misconstrued the interim order and came to conclusion that to favour one A.Harihara Prasad, who was working as P.A. to Superintending Engineer, PR Circle, Nalgonda, the case of the 1^st respondent was not considered. It therefore, directed the 1^st petitioner to send proposals to the 4^th petitioner for posting the 1^st respondent as Deputy Executive Engineer, PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda, by recalling the proposals sent, with respect to A. Harihara Prasad, within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, and also directed the 4^th petitioner to pass appropriate orders by 03.07.2013.

¶14

It is represented by the learned Government Pleader that the 1^st respondent was posted at PRI Sub-Division, Kodad, as per the option exercised by him in the counselling for transfer and postings during May, 2013. In the option form the 1^st respondent had opted PRI SubDivision, Kodad, Nalgonda District. By way of note, the 1^st respondent had stated as follows:

¶15

“Note:- I am District President of Nalgonda of A.P. Panchayat Raj Engineers Association and opted PRI Sub-division, Kodad from PIO, Kodad and also having spouse case i.e. my Mrs. is working as Medical Officer and also mentioned in my transfer application and request to consider my option”.

¶16

In the light of the categorical option exercised by the 1^st respondent in his option form dated 13.05.2013, which in fact had acceded by the authorities, retained him at Kodad in PRI Sub-Division from PIO, Kodad. Therefore, we find no illegality in the orders passed by the petitioners in their proceedings dated 18.06.2013. Further, we

¶17

find no justification for the Tribunal to interfere with the orders of the transfer and directing the petitioners to process and post the 1^st respondent at PRI Sub-Division, Miryalaguda.

¶18

The writ petitions are allowed accordingly, and the orders dated 11.06.2013 and 21.06.2013 in O.A.Nos.3888 and 4778 of 2013 respectively, passed by the Tribunal are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand disposed of.

¶20

__________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J

¶21

____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J

¶22

Date:23.09.2013. Ssv

¶23

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶25

WRIT PETITION Nos.27291 and 27290 of 2013

¶26

Date: 2 3 rd September, 2013.

¶27

Ssv

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, v. K. Shyam Sunder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat Raj, v. K. Shyam Sunder

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

M/s. Lakhani Steel Industries Vs The Commissioner of Central Excise

A.Ravinder Reddy Vs Government of a.P., rep by its Prinicpal Secretary

Dr. B. Vidya Sagar Vs Dr. P. Venkateshwarlu

Ravi Rama rao Vs The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City

Dr. v. Varalakshamma, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by

Mrs.Haripuri Uma Rani, W/o.D.Srinivas Vs Principal Chief Conservator of Forests