Dismissed

The Government of a.P., v. K Venkateswarlu

Telangana HC10 Mar 2014WP/38328/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions were filed to challenge the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order directing employers to place transferred approved probationers below the last approved probationer in the new department. The Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Tribunal's ruling based on specific State Service Rules and General Orders regarding transfer rank. The transfers were deemed humanitarian,

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions were dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions pending in the writ petition shall stand closed.

The Government of a.P., Vs K Venkateswarlu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.38328, 38813, 38330 & 38331 OF 2013

¶4

COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

These writ petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 31.10.2012, in O.A.Nos.473, 474, 482 and 484 of 2010 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and quash the same.

¶6

2. Respondent No.1 in all the writ petitions/applicants were initially appointed in the Irrigation/Accounts/ Agriculture/Cooperation Departments and while working as Junior Assistants/Typists, they were asked for options as to whether they were prepared to go to the Commercial Tax Department or not. When the applicants gave their willingness to go the Commercial Taxes Department, proceedings were issued by the Commissioner of Commercial Tax transferring them from Irrigation/Accounts/ Agriculture/Cooperation Departments to Commercial Tax Department with a condition that (1) they should take last rank below the probationers and approved probationers working in the Department/Division and (2) they should make a declaration on a non-judicial bond paper of Rs.100/- duly sworn in and signed before a Notary Public that their transfer to this Department is at their request and without claiming for any back seniority or further promotion. After absorbing into the Commercial Tax Department, they were placed below the probationers in the Commercial Tax Department. They filed objections contending that they were approved probationers in their parent department prior to absorption in Commercial Tax Department and that the date of declaration of probation is much before Sri

¶7

B.Gopal, Junior Assistant, who was originally appointed in Commercial Tax Department. As they are approved probationers, they ought to have been placed below the last approved probationer instead of placing them below the last probationer. Since they were placed below the last probationer, they filed the aforementioned Original Applications to direct the petitioners herein to place them below the last approved probationer by including their names at the appropriate places in the seniority list and consider their cases for promotion.

¶8

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Applications and directed the petitioners herein to place the applicants as approved probationers below the last approved probationer of the Department and, after that, they should be placed at the appropriate places in the seniority list and consider their cases for promotion, as per their seniority and eligibility, and pass appropriate orders within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same, the present writ petitions are filed by the petitioners/respondents.

¶9

4. Heard both sides.

¶10

5. It is not in dispute before this Court that the applicants were approved probationers in their parent department. As there was deficit personnel in the Commercial Tax Department, options of the employees of the other departments were called for to work in the Commercial Tax Department. The applicants expressed their willingness to come to the Commercial Tax Department. After considering their willingness, proceedings were issued transferring them from their parent department to the Commercial Tax Department with a condition that they should take their rank below the last approved probationer. But the petitioners, instead of fixing seniority of the applicants below the last approved probationer of the Commercial

¶11

Tax Department, placed them below the last approved probationer of the Department. Rule 35(b) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules”) makes it clear that the service of the applicants must be counted from the date of attending to the new department after placing them below the last approved probationer. Therefore, following Rule 35(b) of the Rules, the applicants, who are the approved probationers in the Irrigation Department, are entitled to be placed below the approved probationers in the Commercial Tax Department. That is the reason why the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order and directed the petitioners herein to consider the case of the applicants in terms of Rule 35(b) of the Rules. Therefore, there is no illegality in passing the said order.

¶12

6. Clause 6(i) of G.O.Ms.No.36, General Administration (Services.A) Department, dated 25.1.1990, reads as under:

¶13

“(6) In the event the staff rendered surplus desire to or are proposed to be absorbed on a permanent basis in the Department to which they are reallotted, such permanent absorption shall be on the basis of the following terms and conditions:-

¶14

(i) As the surplus staff is being accommodated by reallotment on humanitarian grounds, they will be deemed to have been directly appointed/transferred to the later department, at their request, and they will take their rank below the last regular candidate in the category in which they are absorbed in the latter Department. The consent of the staff to be so directly appointed/transferred on the above condition will have to be obtained before such transfer is effected/appointment is made.”

¶15

From a perusal of the above clause, it is clear that the persons appointed or transferred to another department should take their rank below the last regular candidate in that category. That means, the probation of regular candidates must have been approved by the concerned department. Hence, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶16

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

¶17

order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶18

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶19

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 10.03.2014 AMD

¶20

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶21

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶22

W.P.Nos.38328, 38813, 38330 & 38331 OF 2013

¶23

DATE: 10.03.2014

¶24

AMD

The Government of a.P., v. K Venkateswarlu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of a.P., v. K Venkateswarlu

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

Commissioner and Director of School Education, Vs S. Durga Devi

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs P.V. Rami Reddy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs a. Venkata Rao

C. Narsimlu Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

S.Venkanna Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices

Smt. M. Ramani, Vs The Superintendent of Post Offices,Anakapalli Division