Partly allowed

M.Srinivasa Rao son of Rami Naidu, v. Bandaru Varaha Naga Bhushana Rao S/o late Venkata Rao

Telangana HC20 Jan 2014WP/35667/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court set aside Administrative Tribunal order directing finalisation of seniority lists for Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors. Issue was remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing petitioners and addressing Government's arguments regarding non-selection posts.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; matter remanded to Tribunal for fresh consideration after hearing petitioners; Tribunal directed to dispose within three months.

M.Srinivasa Rao son of Rami Naidu, Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA WRIT PETITION Nos.35667 & 35686 of 2013

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

(Per Hon’ble Sri RSR, J.)

¶4

1 Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is common and since both these Writ Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Tribunal, we dispose of these two Writ Petitions by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, we refer to the facts as stated in W.P.No.35667 of 2013.

¶5

2 Respondents 1 to 5 herein are the applicants in O.A.No.742 of 2013 field before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. They approached the Tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 therein to finalise the seniority list in the category of Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspectors by preparing yearwise panels of Visakhapatnam Division from the year 199697 onwards by duly apportioning substantive vacancies among the respective feeder categories, by taking into consideration the substantive vacancy position contained in Rc.No.245/2009/A2, dated 09.11.2011 and a consequential direction to include the names of the applicants at appropriate places in the seniority list.

¶6

3 Respondents / applicants 1 to 5 were initially appointed as Junior Assistants and Typists in the ministerial

¶7

service of Excise Department. Later on, they were temporarily promoted as Prohibition & Excise SubInspectors vide proceedings, dated 06.12.2010 and since then they are working as such. It is their case before the Tribunal that they are entitled to regularisation of their services in the category of Prohibition & Excise SubInspectors in the vacancies meant for promotees as per the Special Rules and consequently they are also to be placed in appropriate places in the seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Inspectors.

¶8

4 In the aforesaid O.A the Government has filed a detailed counter affidavit opposing the relief sought for by the applicants. In the said counter affidavit, while denying the various allegations made by the respondents/applicants 1 to 5, it is stated that as per Rule 5 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 no non-gazetted post should be treated as selection post. Promotion and appointment by transfer to higher post other than those mentioned in Sub-rule (a) of the said rule shall be made in accordance with seniority-cum-fitness. The post of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector is a non-gazetted post, hence it is a non-selection post. For non-selection posts referred to in sub-rule (b) of rule 5, the appointing authority shall prepare a list of eligible employees every year as per the relevant rules for promotion to the next higher category of non-selection post. It is also specifically stated that the respondents / applicants 1 to 5 were promoted as

¶9

Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors in the year 2010 on adhoc basis in the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitees. It is also stated that with regard to claim of one Chalapathi Rao, his seniority has been revised in the proceedings Rc.No.126/2002/A1, dated 28.03.2013.

¶10

5 In spite of the said stand taken by the Government in the counter affidavit, the Tribunal, without dealing with the said averments in detail, has passed the impugned order directing the respondent authorities therein to finalise the seniority list of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors in Zone - I by completing the process and include the names of the applicants as per their seniority and eligibility in the panels of the respective years for promotion to the post of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors to the extent of quota reserved for them, within a period of eight weeks.

¶11

6 It is the case of the petitioners herein that in view of such direction given by the Tribunal in the impugned order, their seniority will be affected. It is their case that the respondents / applicants are promotees and inasmuch as the post of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector is a nonselection post, there is no necessity for preparing year-wise panels. It is further submitted that as the seniority list was already finalised, the seniority of the petitioners should not have been disturbed without hearing them and without recording any valid reasons having regard to the stand taken by the Government in the O.A.

¶12

7 On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents / applicants and the learned Government Pleader that since the relief sought for is only with regard to the vacancies which are meant for promotees, that will not affect the seniority of the petitioners in the category of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors.

¶13

8 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have also perused the averments made in the O.A and the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal.

¶14

9 While passing the impugned order, the Tribunal has not gone into various aspects, which are raised in the counter affidavit filed by the Government opposing the claim of the respondents / applicants. As it is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed on non-selection basis, preparation of panels will not arise and further the seniority list has already been prepared in the category of Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspectors, we are of the view that it is a fit case for deciding the matter afresh by the Tribunal on merits after hearing the petitioners herein also. As the Tribunal has not considered the various issues which fall for consideration, before passing the impugned order, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners herein, who are affected by virtue of the directions issued by the Tribunal. As we are remitting the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the same, it is not necessary to record

¶15

any finding on the claim made by the petitioners as well as the respondents / applicants further in this order.

¶16

10 For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders in both the Writ Petitions are set aside. The petitioners herein stand impleaded as party respondents in the O.A.Nos.742 of 2013 and 2646 of 2013 respectively and the Tribunal is directed to consider the matters afresh having regard to the stand of the Government taken in their counter affidavits filed in the respective O.As and also on the objections raised by the petitioners herein on the relief sought for by the respondents / applicants in both the O.As. The Tribunal shall dispose of the O.As as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

11 Accordingly these two Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent of directions indicated above. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in both the Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶18

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

¶19

___________________________ A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J.

¶20

Date: 20.01.2014 Kvsn*

M.Srinivasa Rao son of Rami Naidu, v. Bandaru Varaha Naga Bhushana Rao S/o late Venkata Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasa Rao son of Rami Naidu, v. Bandaru Varaha Naga Bhushana Rao S/o late Venkata Rao

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

Shri Mahavir Ferro Alloys Pvt. Limited Vs M/s. Pps Enviro Power Private Limited

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs Ch. Satyanarayana

K. Srinivasa Rao Vs Union Public Service Commission

Ch. Sayanna, S/o Pedda Saheb, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Vs G.Amrutha Rao, S/o.Rama Swamy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs N.S.Prasad