Dismissed

S. Ramu, v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Jan 2013WP/35541/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service challenged their exclusion from promotions while awaiting repatriation to native districts for past irregular appointments. The Court held that until repatriation is effected with vacancy creation, candidates must be treated as personnel in their current units and considered for promotion based on merit, rejecting the argument that initial irregular

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2012 set aside; petitioners to be considered for promotions in the district units as they were initially appointed.

S. Ramu, Vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOs.24955, 27629, 28762, 28825, 35541 and 28728 OF 2012

¶3

DATED: 22.01.2013

¶4

In W.P.24955 of 2012:

¶5

Between

¶6

1. Y.S. Bhagwan Reddy and 3 others. … Petitioners And

¶7

1. The Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B. Nagar and others. … Respondents

¶8

In W.P.27629 of 2012:

¶9

Between

¶10

M. Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And

¶11

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Admn.) and others. … Respondents

¶12

In W.P.28762 of 2012:

¶13

Between

¶14

1. Smt. Y. Aruna Kumari and 2 others. … Petitioners And

¶15

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Admn.) and another. … Respondents

¶16

In W.P.28825 of 2012: Between 1.Syed Khaja Moinuddin and another … Petitioners And

¶17

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Admn.) and another. … Respondents

¶18

In W.P.35541 of 2012: Between 1. S. Ramu and 5 others. … Petitioners And

¶19

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Admn.) and another. … Respondents

¶20

In W.P.28728 of 2012: Between P. Narasimham … Petitioner And

¶21

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Admn.) and another. … Respondents

¶22

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶23

WRIT PETITION NOs.24955, 27629, 28762, 28825, 35541 and 28728 OF 2012

¶24

COMMON ORDER: (Per G. Rohini, J)

¶25

The petitioners in all these writ petitions are working in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service under different categories. Whereas, the petitioners in W.P.Nos. 24955 and 35541 of 2012 are working in the Ranga Reddy District Unit, the petitioners in W.P.Nos.27629, 28762 and 28825 of 2012 are working in the Unit of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad as of today. So far as W.P.No.28728 of 2012 is concerned, the petitioner is working in the Chittoor District Unit. All these writ petitions are filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher categories.

¶26

We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, a decision was taken by the Committee of the High Court constituted for implementing the Presidential Order and G.O.Ms.No.610, General Administration (SPF.A) Department, dated 30.12.1985 in the Subordinate Courts to repatriate the non-locals who were recruited in excess of 20% and accordingly all the Unit Heads were asked to furnish the particulars of the non-locals who were appointed/recruited in excess of 20%. The petitioners came to know that their names were also included in the list submitted by the Unit Heads showing that their appointments were in excess of 20%. They were also subsequently issued notices by the High Court that with a view to implement the Presidential Order, 1975 and G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985 in the Subordinate Judiciary, it was proposed to repatriate the writ petitioners to their native district units by creating supernumerary posts with the permission of the Government if necessary. In response to the same, the petitioners submitted representations stating that G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985 had no application to their appointments for the various reasons mentioned therein and claiming that they did not fall within the excess 20% of non-local

¶27

candidates. Thus they requested the High Court to undertake a fresh exercise and till then to keep the proposal for repatriation in abeyance.

¶28

In the meanwhile, it appears that certain representations were received by the High Court from the Unit Heads and the Employees’ Associations seeking instructions with regard to filling up the vacancies existing in different categories by promotion. In pursuance thereof, the High Court by letter dated 25.07.2012 instructed all the Unit Heads that while making promotions in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service the candidates who have been identified for repatriation should not be considered.

¶29

Alleging that in terms of the said instructions, the Unit Heads have been proceeding to promote the persons who are juniors to the writ petitioners, all these writ petitions are filed.

¶30

As we could see, the question whether the respondents are justified in taking a decision that the petitioners herein should be repatriated to their native unit on the ground that their appointment was in excess of the 20% quota meant for non-locals is not questioned before us nor we are inclined to express any opinion in that regard.

¶31

However, the resolution passed by the Committee dated 7.04.2011 shows that while resolving to repatriate the employees whose appointment was in excess of 20% to their native district units, it was further resolved that the availability of vacancies in each class/category in the district to which the repatriation to be made should be ascertained and in the event of nonavailability of vacancies the 1^st respondent shall address the Government for creation of supernumerary posts for accommodating the repatriated employees.

¶32

Admittedly the said exercise has not been completed. It is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that the Government by letters dated 16.1.2012 and 28.08.2012 requested the High Court to furnish the requirement status of the initial recruitment of the employees who are proposed to be repatriated in view of the instructions issued vide G.O.Ms.No.674, dated 7.9.2007 and in pursuance thereof, the High Court addressed a letter dated 20.09.2012 to all the Unit Heads to furnish the details relating to the initial recruitment of the affected employees and it

¶33

appears that the further steps are yet to be taken.

¶34

Thus the fact remains that the decision taken for repatriation of the employees whose appointment was in excess of 20% could not be implemented so far and the non-locals identified for repatriation are still continuing in the units in which they are initially appointed.

¶35

The record placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents shows that as per the seniority list prepared under different categories, the petitioners herein, who are identified for repatriation are within the zone of consideration for promotion for the next higher categories, however their candidature has not been considered for promotion only on the ground that they are identified for repatriation.

¶36

Therefore, the question that requires consideration by us is whether the respondents are justified in denying the promotion to the petitioners in spite of the fact that they are continuing in the respective units in which they were initially appointed.

¶37

As we could see from the record, the decision of the High Court that the candidates identified for repatriation should not be considered for promotion was taken on the ground that their initial recruitment itself was in clear violation of the Presidential Order and as such they cannot be considered as belonging to the Unit where they are presently working de facto and that in case they are promoted in the units where they are presently working, the situation would become very complex since supernumerary posts will have to be created in the unit to which they have to be repatriated at the level which such candidate holds after the current promotion.

¶38

Having given out thoughtful consideration to the controversy involved, it appears to us that the decision taken by the High Court on administrative side not to consider the petitioners for promotion to the next higher posts ignoring the fact that the repatriation to their native district units has not yet been implemented is erroneous and unwarranted.

¶39

It may be true that a decision has been taken to repatriate the nonlocals whose initial appointment was in excess of 20%. However the repatriation can be effected only after ascertaining the availability of vacancies in the district to which the repatriation is to be made and in the event of non-availability of vacancies supernumerary posts have to be

¶40

created for accommodating the repatriated employees. Admittedly the said process is still in progress and the Government has not yet granted the sanction for creation of supernumerary post. Thus the petitioners as of today are continuing in the unit in which they were initially appointed. As long as they continue in the cadre of the said unit, the respondents are bound to consider their candidature for promotion to the next higher category on the basis of the merit and ability. In other words, unless and until the repatriation is effected and the petitioners are sent to their native unit, they should be considered as the personnel in the cadre of the unit in which their initial appointment was made.

¶41

We also found from the record that certain representations were made by the persons identified for repatriation stating that they are in fact local candidates in the District Unit where they are working and they were wrongly included in the list of candidates identified for repatriation. All the said representations were placed before the Committee and having considered the issue it was decided to rectify the list of the identified candidates if it is certified by the Unit Head that the identification was incorrect. As we could see, the petitioners herein also made such representations and it appears that the decision is yet to be taken with regard to their claim that they are the local candidates.

¶42

Be that as it may, as expressed above, we are of the view that the petitioners shall be treated as the employees belonging to the District Unit in which they were initially appointed till the repatriation is effected. In the meanwhile, if it is proposed to effect promotions to the next higher categories in the said District Units, the respondents are bound to consider their candidature in terms of the A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service Rules. Even assuming that the initial recruitment of the petitioners was in violation of the Presidential Order and it is necessary to repatriate them on account of the orders of the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.610, dated 30.12.1985, it is not as if their initial recruitment itself is rendered void. The alleged violation of the Presidential Order is only an irregularity which requires to be rectified by repatriating them to their native unit. Therefore, as long as they are continued in the unit where they were appointed, they are entitled to be considered for

¶43

promotion in accordance with law. Merely on the basis of identification for repatriation, they cannot be treated as a different class and therefore nonconsideration of the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the next higher category in our considered opinion would result in breach of equality clause guaranteed under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned proceedings dated 25.7.2012 are hereby set aside and the writ petitions are disposed of holding that as and when the promotions to the next higher category are taken up in Rangareddy District Unit and the Units of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and Chittoor, the candidature of the writ petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law. No costs.

¶45

Justice G. Rohini

¶46

_________________________ Justice C.Praveen Kumar

¶47

Date: 22.01.2013 GBS

S. Ramu, v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ramu, v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Cggc Soma Jv, Vs Commerical Tax Officer

B. Ramachandraiah, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M.CHENGAMMA,C.MALLAVARAM,CHITTOORAND3 Ors. Vs V.NAGAMAN,CHERLAPALLI,CHITTOORAND15 Ors.

T.Radhamma and 2 Ors. Vs v.Nagamani and 19 Ors.

M/s. Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited Vs The Union of India through

Prl. Secy., Education Dept. and 2 Ors. Vs C. Sithalakshmi and Ano.