Writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal order dismissing the applicants' plea for notional seniority. Court upheld the Tribunal order noting petitioners accepted appointment subject to prospective seniority.
Writ Petition dismissed; liberty to avail legal remedies remains.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.25005 OF 2014
ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)
This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 27.10.2011, in O.A.No.9031 of 2009 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).
2. Petitioners herein/applicants filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to issue a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/respondents to fix their seniority notionally in the cadre of Secondary Grade Teachers (S.G.T.) from the date of appointments made to the lower ranking candidates from 1997 onwards with all consequential benefits.
3. The petitioners were appointed as S.G.Ts. pursuant to D.S.C.1996 notification. The vacancies arose upto September, 1996 were taken into account and select list was published by following the rule of reservation. Later, the Government issued orders in February, 1999 for filling up the vacancies available till that date from D.S.C.-1996 candidates. Thereafter, second list was published. While publishing the second list, the authorities have not considered the Backward Class candidates selected in the first list for appointment in the open category. In view of that, the petitioners could not be selected. Again, the Government issued orders in the month of November, 1997 for filling up of all the vacancies available upto June, 1997 from D.S.C.1996. Accordingly, third list was published. Even in that list also, the authorities have not considered the Backward Class Candidates for
selection in the open category. So, the applicants filed Original Applications before the Tribunal and the same were dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, they filed W.P.No.12724 of 2002 and batch and the same was disposed of with certain directions. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Rt.No.264, dated 19.4.2005. Then, the District Educational Officer submitted a report to the Government stating that among 30 writ petitioners, only three are coming up for selection. The Government modified the orders in G.O.Rt.No.264, dated 19.4.2005, and permitted respondent No.2 to appoint the petitioners and others in the aforementioned writ petition as S.G.Ts. The petitioners were appointed through proceedings, dated 9.6.2005, of respondent No.3 and their services were also regularized. When the seniority list for promotion was prepared, the petitioners noticed that the persons, who got less marks than them, were appointed in the year 1997 and they are continuing as such till then. Though they made a representation to that effect on 7.2.2009, no action was taken by the respondents. Hence, they filed the aforementioned Original Application.
4. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, dismissed the aforementioned Original Application. Challenging the same, applicants filed the present Writ Petition.
5. Heard both sides.
6. The condition in the appointment order, dated 9.6.2005, reads as follows:
“The appointment is made subject to the condition that their appointment is from prospective effect and they shall not claim retrospective appointment viz., seniority, fixation of pay, other benefits etc., from the year 1996 and they will be placed on apprentice for a period of two years from the date of joining duty.”
Anyone of the conditions in the appointment order has not been under challenge. When the appointment order has been accepted by the
petitioners, they are bound by the conditions mentioned therein. Now, the petitioners cannot turn round and say that they are entitled for notional seniority from the date of appointment of lower rank persons on the ground of discrimination. Since the appointment order itself is clear that the petitioners have to take the seniority from the date of joining the duty, they cannot claim retrospective seniority on par with less meritorious candidates. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the aforementioned Original Application and that order needs no interference by this Court, and hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedies available to them under law. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU
JUSTICE ANIS Date: 13.10.2014 AMD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND
THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No.25005 OF 2014
DATE: 13.10.2014
AMD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners who accepted appointment subject to prospective seniority can claim retrospective seniority from 1996.
Whether the Tribunal rightly dismissed the plea for notional seniority fixing under the appointment conditions.
Petitioners
Respondents 1-3
K.C.Bhanu
Anis
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
