Dismissed

G.Padama Reddy v. The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Mar 2014WP/2927/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's decision upholding a Government order. The order granted relaxation in permit of seniority to favor a junior employee over another pending conversion to Senior Assistant, citing lack of specific promotional posts and the junior's existing seniority.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

G.Padama Reddy Vs The Govt. of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND

¶2

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA W.P.No.2927 of 20011

¶3

ORDER: (Per Justice B.Prakash Rao)

¶4

The petitioner is an unsuccessful applicant before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad who filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking writ of Certiorari relating to the orders passed in O.A.No.11988 of 2009 dated 23.09.2010 and in Review M.A.No.2809 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011 confirming the orders passed by the 1^st respondent-Government in G.O.Ms.No.78 Law (N) Department, dated 17.308.2009 by holding the same as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Rules,1998 and the orders issued in G.O.M.S No.225 dated 18.05.1999, and set aside the same and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Senior Assistant by conversion in preference to the 3^rd respondent against cyclic point No.5, earmarked for Senior Stenographers in a unit of 10 vacancies and appoint him as Senior Assistant with all benefits.

¶5

2. Briefly, the facts, which gave rise to the present case, are that the application was filed before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal purportedly under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Similar such relief was sought on the premise that the petitioner was promoted as Senior Stenographer on 30.12.1994 and working in the same capacity all along. He passed Civil Judicial Test and Accounts Test for Subordinate Officers Part-I

¶6

in 1997, and the probation being declared vide proceedings dated 24.09.1997, he is fully eligible and qualified for Conversion to the post of Senior Assistant as per the provisions of the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998.

¶7

3. Even though he has made a representation on 15.06.2006, nothing has been done in his favour and the Government has issued relaxation order in G.O.Ms.No.78 dated 17.08.2009 in favour of the 3^rd respondent herein and thus both the actions on the part of the respondents in not considering his case and granting relaxation in favour of the third respondent is totally illegal.

¶8

4. According to the petitioner, both actions are contrary to the A.P. Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 and orders in G.O.Ms.No.225 dated 18.05.1999. That apart, it was pointed out that according to the earlier direction given in O.A.No. 3719 of 2008, the petitioner submitted his representation and he should have been given in preference to the 3^rd respondent.

¶9

5. The plea raised on behalf of the respondents was that as per Rule 31 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, there is ample power to make relaxation and further the 3^rd respondent being senior and there being no post of Special Category Stenographer in the G.P Office, High Court of A.P, hence the relaxation was expedient. In the circumstances, considering this nature of the submissions made across the bar and also on hearing both sides, the Tribunal referred to the concerned Rules especially Rule 16 and G.O.Ms.No. 225. It was held that having regard to the pecuniary facts and circumstances where there being no post and promotional post of Special Category Stenographer to the post of Senior

¶10

Assistant in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, hence it was felt necessary to relax and further the respondent No.3 being senior to the petitioner, there is no illegality found as such and dismissed the application.

¶11

6. Having heard both sides and on perusal of the matter available on record, there are no aforesaid events. Admittedly the petitioner is junior to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent was promoted as Senior Stenographer on 04.12.1985 whereas the petitioner was promoted on 30.12.1994. Now the petitioner has submitted a representation earlier but however by taking into account the seniority of the respondent No.3 and non-existence of such promotional post of Special Category Stenographer, the regularisation was granted by the Government.

¶12

7. In Ashok Kumar Uppal and Others Vs State of J&K and Others^[1] , the Apex Court considered the power of relaxation in the given circumstances. In that case, in order to remove hardship arising out of the retrospective operation of the amendment, Recruitment Rules were relaxed and five candidates were promoted and exercise of such power of relaxation was held to be valid.

¶13

8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner is being deprived, but however, nothing resorted as pointed out in the proceedings in favour of the 3^rd respondent herein. In view of the same, we do not find any merits in this writ petition.

¶14

9. In view of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the Tribunal, nothing much has been added in these proceedings, even at this

¶15

stage, to show as to how the action on the part of the Government is vitiated or without any jurisdiction.

¶16

10. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶17

_______________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J)

¶18

_______ (B.N. RAO NALLA,J) Date: -04-2011 sp

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA