Allowed

B.Subba Rayudu v. State Reorganisation Department,G.a.D.,Hyd,and 5

Telangana HC8 Dec 2020WP(TR)/5482/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employee challenged allocation to Andhra Pradesh and denial of posting and salary in Telangana. The court allowed both petitions, set aside his allocation, directed permanent allocation and immediate posting in Telangana, and ordered salary arrears with interest. It dismissed the impleadment application.

What did the court decide?

Allocation set aside; permanent Telangana allocation from 14.01.2016 and immediate posting directed; salary from 08.03.2017 until posting with 7% annual interest payable within four weeks.

B.Subba Rayudu Vs State Reorganisation… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANORA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

¶5

WRIT PETITION^(TR) No. s482 OF 2017 AND

¶6

l.A. No.1 of 2020 in/and WRIT PETITION No. 24820 of 2017

¶7

WRIT PETITION^(TR) No. 5482OF 2017

¶8

Between:

¶9

B. Subba Rayudu, S/o. Subbanaik, Age: 49 Veras, Occ: Joint Director- Class-A, Presently working as Project Director ATlvlA in Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.

¶10

..,Applicant

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State Reorganisation Department, rep. by its Secretary, General Administration (SR) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶15

The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶16

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶17

The Government of lndia represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3'' Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan lvlarket, New Delhi.

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Petition under Article 226 o'f the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to declare the final allocation orders issued by the 6th respondent in Order No. 5(2)12016 dated: 14-01-2016 in allotting the applicant to the State of Andhra Pradesh is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and violative Articles 1 4, 1 6 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and contrary to final allocation guidelines issued by the 1'1 respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 312 dated: 30-10-2014 and consequently declare that the applicant is entitled for allotment to the State of Telangana.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶21

Between:

¶22

Dr. S. Ramchander, S/o. Gonya Naik, R/o. Flat No.BB, Nallandanagar, Hyderguda, Attapur, Hyderabad.

¶23

..Applica nt

¶24

AND

¶25

1 B. Subba Rayudu, S/o. Subbanaik, Age: 49 Veras, Occ: Joint Director- Class-A, Presently working as Project Director ATMA in Rangareddy District, Hyderabad .... Writ Petitioner/ Respondent

¶26

2 The State Reorganisation Department, rep. by its Secretary, General Administration^(SR) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶27

3 The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal, Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶28

Contd. . .

¶29

¶30

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad

¶31

The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶32

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶33

The Government of lndia represented by its Secretary, llinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3'' Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan lvlarket, New Delhi.

¶34

...Respondents

¶35

Petition under Section 164 of Writ Rule, R/w. 151 CPC., praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioner herein as^proposed respondent No.7 in the Writ Petition(TR) No. 5482 oI 2017.

¶36

WVMP(TR). NO: 701 OF 2017

¶37

Between:

¶38

The State Reorganisation Department, rep. by its Secretary, General Administration (SR) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶39

AND

¶40

... Applicant

¶41

B. Subba Rayudu, S/o. Subbanaik, Age: 49 yeras, Occ: Joint DirectorClass-A, Presently working as Project Director ATMA in Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.

¶42

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal, Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶43

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶44

The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶45

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶46

The Government of lndia represented by its Secretary, lVinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3'd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan lr/arket, New Delhi,

¶47

...Respondents

¶48

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted in OA.No.209/2016 dated: 29-01-2016.

¶49

W]/MP(TR),^NO: 703 OF 2017

¶50

Between:

¶51

1-The State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶52

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶53

... Applicants/ Respondent Nos.4 and 5 in OA.

¶54

AND

¶55

¶56

Dr. B. Subba Rayudu, Joint Director of Animal Husbandry, Presently working as Project Director ATIVA in Rangareddy District, Hyderabad.

¶57

The State Reorganisation Department, rep. by its Secretary, General Administration (SR) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶58

The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Principal, Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Dev. & Fisheries Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶59

The Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶60

The Government of lndia represented by its Secretary, tvlinistry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3'' Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan l,4arket, New Delhi.

¶61

...Respondents/ Respondents 1 to 3 and 6

¶62

¶63

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. SARATH

¶64

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1:

¶65

GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (SR) DEPARTMENT

¶66

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDRY^(SER.)

¶67

Counsel forthe Respondent No.6: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO,

¶68

ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶69

Counsel for the Proposed Respondent Nos. 7&8: SRI M. VENKATRAM REODY

¶70

WRIT PETITION NO: 24820 OF 2017

¶71

Between:

¶72

B. Subba Rayudu, S/o. Subbanaik, a ged about 49 years, Joint DirectorClass-A, Project Director, ATI,4A in Rangare ddy District, Hyderabad (Under Orders of repatriation).

¶73

AND

¶74

1 The State of Telangana, represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶75

The Director of Animal Husbandry, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶76

...RESPONDENTS

¶77

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing^posting orders to the^petitioner as Joint Director of Animal Husbandry for the last over 4 Yz months consequent on his repatriation to his parent unit vide Govt. N/emo.No. 8356/49ri.l(1 )/20 16, dated: 16-1-2017 and putting him on air is as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for issuing posting orders as Joint Director of Animal Husbandry in Telangana State with all consequential and attendant benefits including salary from the date of relief from his earlier Station on repatriation.

¶78

¶79

WPMP. NO: 30764 OF 20'17

¶80

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to issue posting orders to the petitioner as Joint Director of Animal Husbandry forthwith

¶81

lA. No. 1 of 2020^(WPMP. NO: 33396 OF 2017)

¶82

Between:

¶83

Dr. V. Lakshma Reddy, S/o. V. Narayan Reddy, occ: Additional Director, Animal Husbandry Department O/o. Director of Animal Husbandry, Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad- 500 028 Rl/o. Flat No.301, Reliance Avans Bliss Jayaberi Enclave, Gachibowli, Hyderabad- 500 032

¶84

Dr. S. Ramchander S/o. Gonya Naik, occ: Additional Director, Animal Husbandry Department O/o. Registrar, Telangana State Veterinary Council Shanthi Nagar, Hyderabad R/o. Flat No.203, Om Towers Om Nagar, tt/ehdipatnam Ring Road, lr/ehdipatnam, Hyderabad

¶85

...Petitioners/ lmplead Petitioners 3&4

¶86

AND

¶87

'1 . B. Subba Rayudu, S/o. Subbanaik, aged about 49 years, Joint DirectorClass-A, Project Director, ATMA in Rangareddy District, Hyderabad (Under Orders of repatriation)

¶88

..,. Writ Petitioner

¶89

The State of Telangana, represented by its Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶90

The Director of Animal Husbandry, State of Telangana, Hyderabad.

¶91

... Respondents/ Respondents

¶92

Petition under Section 16-4 of Writ Rules, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to implead the petitioners herein as proposed respondents 3 and 4 in the Writ Petition No. 24820 ot 2017.

¶93

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. BALA KISHAN RAO

¶94

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1&2: GP FOR ANIMAL HUSBANDARY

¶95

Counsel for the Proposed Respondents 3&4: SMT K. UDAYA SRI

¶96

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶97

HONOU RAI}T, I.] SRI .I U STI C E NI.S.ItA NIAC H AND ITA RAO

¶98

\ I)

¶99

HONOURAIil,Ir SllI,It'S'rlCE l'.AMARNATH GOUD

¶100

\ rit Pctition (I'R).No.5{82 of 2(ll7

¶101

and

¶102

I.i.N0.1 of 2020 in/and Writ Petition No.24820 of 2017

¶103

COMMON ORDEII.:^(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao)

¶104

The subject inattel of both these Writ Petitions is interconnccted ancl the salne petitioner has filed ooth cases. l-herefore, they alc bcing disposed olby this Common 3rder.

¶105

2, 1'he petitioncr' r,,;rs irrirknrg as Joint Director - Class 'A' in the Animal Husbandrl' Dep:rr-tnrent ol the composite State of Andhra Pradesh. The post r,.f .ioint Dircctor'- Class'A'is a State-Cadre post. IIe belongs to a Schedr,riccl^'l-ribc cor.nrnunity.

¶106

His wife Smt. B. Shantabai was also a State Govemrnent employee and was rtorl< ir.[] as Assistant Registrar.

¶107

The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into the new State of Telangana and the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh w.e.f.02.06.20 14 try, 1[1s A.]']. lte-organization Act, 2014 (for short, 'the Act')

¶108

'fhe petitiont:r' i3'e an oi:tion on 07.03.2015 for allocation to thc Statc ol"l elan*irl,l

¶109

..)..

¶110

MSR,J & TA.J Np(tr)_5482_20 | 7& w_24820_20t¹

¶111

But, he was tentatively allocated to the State of Andhra Pradesh vide proceedings GAD (SR) Department Notification No.21105 - B / sR1 / 2014 - 4 dt. 12.06.201 5.

¶112

Aggrieved thereby, petitioner ga\e a lepresentation d1.26.06.2015 stating that though he u'as born in Kadapa District o1' Andhra Pradesh, he had studied Classcs Vltl. I.X and X at Khammanr in the State of Telangana and subsequent education including Post Graduation was also in the Telangana State and so he is to be considered as a local candidate of State of^'Ielangana; he was initially appointed as Assistant Director in Chevella, Ranga Reddy District in Telangana State through an examination conducted by the A.P. Public Service Commission in 1993 and he had onlv worked in Telansarra State; his wile was rvorking in the Off'rce ol the Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Telangana State, Ityderabad as Assistant Registrar; that she rvas initially appointed as Junior Assistant in Krishna District o1'the present residuary State of Andhra Pradesh against 'non-local' category as per the Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organizalion o{' Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, I 975 issued by the President of India under Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India notified vide G.O.Ms.No.674. Ger.reral Administration^(SPF- A) Depaftment dt.29.10.1975 (also called 'Presidential Order of I 975'); during bifurcation process of the employees between the two States, she was allotted to Telangana State b1, u,a), of an 'Order.to

¶113

MSR,J & TA,J wp(tr)_54E2 2017& wp_24820 2011

¶114

-t

¶115

Serve' proceeding dt.31.05.2014 of the Director, Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India; she was re-allocated to the residuary Stale of Andhla Pradesh subsequently; that she gave objection to the saure stating that she was bom, brought up and educated in Telangana State and she had rendered service for l6 years in the area coverecl by the said State and her reallocation to Andhra Pradesh was absurd, illegal; that the same was pending for consideration; that unless his wife's request is considered or finalized his allotment ought not to be considered.

¶116

He also stated that he had two children bom and brought up in Hyderabad, aged 15 years and 12 years respectively, who were in Classes 10 and 8 respectively, and ilhe is allotted to the State of A.P., their studies would bc adverselv al fected.

¶117

He also statcd that as pcr thc Seniolity List in the Cadre of Joint Director. his position \ as at Sclial No.4 and thele are r'xisting vacancies in the Telangana State since three Joint Directors from Telangana State rr e rc allotted to Andlira Pradesh.

¶118

At the tirne ol these events, petitioner was working as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad in the Agriculture Department of the State o1-'l-elangar-ra on deputation.

¶119

Proceedings of the Government of India on 14.01,2016 allocating the petitioner to the Statc of Anclhra Pradesh

¶120

But, not u'ithstanding the same, the petitioner \VAS finally allocated by the NIinistry of Personnel. PG & Pensions, Depaftment of

¶121

¶122

i,ISR,J & TA,J wp(tr)_5482_201 7& wp_24a20 _2017

¶123

Personnel and Training, Governn.rcr.rt ol' India vide proceedings F.No.29l01/2016 - SR(S) dt.1.1.01.2016 (Orcier No.5(2)/2016) to the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶124

O.A.No.209 of 2016 and the lntcrim Order therein dt.29.01.2016

¶125

This was assailed by the petitioner by fiting O.A.No.209 of 2016 before the Administrative Tlibunal fbr both the State of Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana at Hyderabacl.

¶126

Petitioner also filed an Interlocutory Application in the O.A. challenging the proceedings dt. 1,1.01.20 l6 o1' the Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Departrrent o1'Pelsonnel and Training. Government of India.

¶127

The Administrative Tribunal admitted the O.A. and issued notice to the respondents on 29.01.2016 and directed that the flnal allocation of the petitioner to the State ol'Auclhla Pradesh shall be subject to the final re sult in the O.A.

¶128

Order dt.16.02.2016 in W.P.No.,1391 of 2{)16

¶129

Challenging the said interim order of the Tribunal, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4391 of 20 16 in the common High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶130

The said Writ Petition was allowed partly on 16.02.2016 setting aside the interim order of the Tribunal and it remanded the case to the Tribunal fbr fresh consideration and passirrg of a speaking order after hearing both sides witltin t\ o u'ecks tiorr the date ol

¶131

MSR,J & TA,J \p(tr\ _5482 201'7& vtp 24820_2011

¶132

¶133

receipt of its order. The Bench directed that the petitioner shall not be relieved from his present place of work at Hyderabad till the disposal of the interlocutorv application br. thc'l-ribunal.

¶134

15" In view ol thc said order, thc petitioner continued to rvork as Project Director. AT\4A. Ranga Reddy' District in the Agriculture Departrnent on deputation.

¶135

It is alleged by the petitior.rer that the Adn.rinistrative Tribunal did not pass an)- orders in the interlocutory application of the petitioner as directed by the lligh Court in W.P.No.4391 of 2016; and yet, after the final allocation order was passed on 14.01.2016, petitioner was relieved fiorr ATMA, Ranga Reddy District, in the Agriculture Deparlment vide G.O.Rt.No.11 dt.04.02.2016 of the Government of Telangana, Animal Husbandry Department and consequential orders were issued vide Memo No.8356 / AGRI.I (1) / 2016 dt.16.01.20 I7 repatriating the petitioner to his parent Department of Aninral Husbandrl .

¶136

Petitioner stutcs that hc uas lepatriated from the post ofProject Director, ATMA. Ranga Redcl1'District on07.03.2017 and he rnade a representation on 08.03.2017 to the Special Chief Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government of Telangana for giving him posting.

¶137

::6:: MSR.J & TA.J \ p(^(r)_5482_201 7& r!p_24E20_2017

¶138

W.P.r-o.2.1820 of 2017

¶139

But, no posting orders were issr-red to the petitioner for ov er 4'/z months and no salary was also paid to hirr, lorcing the petitioner to file W.P.No.24820 of 2017 challenging the Govemment Memo No.8356 / AGRI.I (l) I 2016 dt.16.01.2017.

¶140

Contentions of^petitioner

¶141

It is the contention of petitioner that the order No.5 (2) of 2016 dt.14.01.2016 permanently allocating the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh itself states in para no.2 thereol that it would not come into effect in respect of anv person uho has obtained 'stay order' from a Courl of Law against his allocation to any of the sllccessor States till tl-re time sucir star orctcr is i ire ritccl: ancl since the order passed by the Division Bench on 16.02.2016 in Writ Petition No.4391 of 2016 directing the petitioner not to be disturbed from l.ris current posting is in the nature ol such 'stay order', the petitioner cannot be asked to repoft to the State ofAndhra Pradesh.

¶142

osted from June 2017 in thc State of Telan ab of mutual transfer

¶143

It is his further contention that his u,ife Srrt. Il. Shantabai had made a representation on 19.10.201(r that she is vn,orking as Assistant Registrar in the Head Office i.e.. Ol'trcc o1- the Special Cornmissioner for Cooperation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Guntur in the State of Andhra Pradesh, that she was permanentll allocated to Zone.ll in the State of Andhra Pladesh. that sl're u,as u illin-s to lorego her

¶144

MSR,J & TA,J wp(tr)_5482_201 7& !vp_24820_2017

¶145

::7 t:

¶146

seniority in Zone-Il and willing to take last rank below the last regular Assistant Registrar working in Zone - VI (in the State of Teiangana); that Smt. B. Geethavani, anothel Assistant Registrar working in the Office of District Co-operative Audit Officer, Hyderabad Zone (ZoneVI in Telangana State) was willing to get transferred to Zone-II in the State ol Andhra I'raclcsh on nrr-rtiral basis on nativity and community grounds; and she requested to consider transfer on rnutual basis with the said Smt. B. Geethavani in view of the health condition of Srnt.Geethavani's husband and hr.ruranitarian grounds from the State of Andhra Pradesh to the State of Telangana and vice-versa Petitioner contends that both Governments agreed and G.O.Ms.No.51 Agriculture and Co-operation (COOP.I) Department dt.12.06.2017 was issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh according permission for petitioner's wife B. Shantabai's inter-State transfer on reciprocal basis to the State of Telangana and Smt. B. Geethavani to the State of Andhra Pradesh; that similar G.O.Ms.No.22 was issued on 18.05.2017 by the State of Telangana fol inter-State transfer of Smt. B Geethavani; and ultimatcll fiorr I 1.06.2017, the petitioner's wife Smt. B. Shantabai u'as posted as Assistant Registrar in the Office of Commissioner lor Co-operation ar-rd Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Telanq.ana State at IIlderabad.

¶147

Petitioner contends that as per Section 80 of the State Reorganization Act, 201 4, the Central Government issued final allocation guideiines which were notified vide G.O.Ms.No.3 12 dt.

¶148

MSR.J &'TA,J \p(tr) 5'182 2017& !p_24820-_2017

¶149

::8::

¶150

30.10.2014 for allocation of the emplol,ees betrveen the two States; that in the said guidelines, at para no. l2 Clause (vii), it was stated that no allocable posts should be omitted while distributing the cadre strength betvveen the two States; that para no. l4 thereof provided for allocation of personnel, and directed that the Central Government shall, by general or special order. final1y allot every person for service, after consideration of option receivecl tlom tl-re employees; that para No.18 provided Principles guiding allocation; and that Clause (l) ofpara no. 18 of final allocation gLridelines provided that

¶151

"The ollocation shall bc done itt orLl,-'r o.f .scniot itt cr.s trtuiluble on June 01.2014. Those who hute optecl, vho ure lotul tunclidate.s' ralutable lo the State to v,hich they hurc optecl sholl. in order of their' seniority, be considered for allocution lir.st. l/'allotubLe post.\ in that category remain, then. Others who hut'e optecl to the State moy be allocated in order or seniority. If still posts remain allocation will be made in reyerse order of seniority" .

¶152

It is contended that the total sanctioned strength ofposts in the cadre of Joint Director, Class - A in Animal Husbandry Department is 23, and 13 posts were allotted to Andhra Pradesh State and 10 posts were allotted to Telangana State

¶153

It is contended thal the responclents ditl not tuke into accoLult the petitioner's option and his seniority position No.4 in the seniority lisl of Joint Director ontl violtrlctl the grritlt:Lines i:;.yued vide G.O.Ms.No.3 I 2 dt.30. 1 0.20 I 4.

¶154

Reliance is also placed on Clause (l) ol para no.18 of the Guidelines issued for final allocatiorr in the abor.e C.O. rvhich states :

¶155

,.o,,

¶156

MSR,J &-I'A.J wp(1r)_54E2_2017& lvP 21820_20r7

¶157

"Spouscs in State cadrc in Government or in State Government instifutions, Local bodies and those who are deemed allocated as per the Ac; shall as far as practicable, be allotted to the same Stale, after considering o;ttion: made by them und their local candidature. Spouses who are local candidate,'of a State shall be allocated to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may be allocated after considering their options. "

¶158

25, Petitionel contends that when his spouse is bom and educated in the State of Telangana, she has to be treated as a 'local candidate' of the State of Telangaua and sire is now allocated to the State of Telangana; so. b) appl\ ing thc above clar:se, he ought to be allocated to the State of^'l elangana as well: and the impugned final allocation order passed by the Ministrl, of Personnel, PG & Pensions, Department ot' Pelsonnel arrd^'fraining, Goverrunent of India vide proceedings Ir.No.29101/2016 SR(S) dt. 1 4.01 .20 16 (Order No.5(2)/2016) permanently allocating petitioner to the residuary State ofAndhra Pradesh. has to be set aside.

¶159

Petitioner contends that the respondents have treated him as a local candidate of the State of Andhra Pradesh on the ground that he hails fi'om CLrddapah District in the State of Andhra Pradesh overlooking the lact that fronr Classes VIII to X, he had studied in Khammam District rvhicl-r falls in the nerv State of Telangana; and that AS per the A.['. Public Employ.ment (Organization of Local Cadres and RegLrlation ol I)irect I{ecluitnrcnt) Order, 1975 which should be .the^{basis to detemine his local candiclatuleas per para18(n).school}

¶160

MSR.J & TA.J !p(tr)_5482_2017& \P_24820-2011

¶161

::10::

¶162

records from Class VIII have to be considered and if so. he would become local candidate of the State ofTelangana only.

¶163

The Re-numberine of O.A.No.209 of 2016 as W.P.^(1-ll) No.5842 of 2017 after abolition of the Administrative Tribunal bv the State of^'I elansana

¶164

We may point out that the Administrative Tribunal for the State of Telangana was abolished b1, the Covernment of'^-1'elangana and the case O.A.No.209 of 2016 frled b1 the petitioncr rras transi'erred to the comlnon High Court for the State ol Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh and re-nr.rrnberctl :rs \'.P.⁽ i I{l \o...r-182 of 2017. Both were directed to be clubbed together.

¶165

The stand of the State of Telansana

¶166

The State of Telangana and its Director o1' Animal Husbandry who were impleaded as respondent nos.4 and 5 in O.A.No.209 of 2016 I W.P. (TR) No.5482 of 2017 filed counter-affidavit / V.M.A.No.205 of 2016 in O,A.No.209 of 2016^(re-numbered as WVMP(TR).No.703 of 2017) to vacate the order dt.29.01.2016 granted by it and disrniss the O.A. / \I.P.

¶167

29, In the said counter-affldavit. it is stated that petitioner's wile had been appointed in Krishna District and prornoted as Assistant Registrar in Zone-ll (Zonal Cadre Post). that her seniority was also declared in the said Zone rvhich f alls in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as per Section 77(2) of the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 she has to work in the said State only.

¶168

::ll::

¶169

\4SR.J & IA.J wp(tr)_5182_201 7& wp _24820 _2017

¶170

Therelbre" it is stated that pctitioner cannot claim that his wife is working in the State of Telangana and claim allotment to the Telangana State on 'spouse' grounds.

¶171

It is stated that petitioner belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh as per his local candidature and so he has been allocated to the home State of Andhra Pradesh based on availability of posts in the said State.

¶172

It is ho*,ever stated that petitioner's representation regarding his provisional allocation to the State of Andhra Pradesh and the local status of his wit-e r.i ere referred to the Commissioner of Co-operatives and Registrar o1-^{('o-operativc} Soci.-ties. H1'derabad and the latter vide Lr.Roc.No.77ti \11\C^'10 1'1 dt.ll.0-1.1015 informed that as on that date petitioner's u it-e is rvorking as Assistant Registrar in the Office of Commissioner & Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Andhra Pradesh at H1'derabad.

¶173

It is admitted that petitioner while working as Joint Director (Animal Husbandry) at District Project Office, Rajiv Vidya Mission had submitted option lorm to the Animal Husbandry Department exercising his option for the State of Telangana as per preferential claim in terrns of para 18(i) of the option form and also enclosed details of his spoLrse" br-Lt his ]'eclllcst cannot be accepted, and the decision was taken in accordance with the guidelines for final allocation.

¶174

iilz:l

¶175

MSR,J & TA,J wp(tr) 5482 2017& \.p_24820_2017

¶176

In W.P.No.24820 of 2077, the State of Telangana and the Director of Animal Husbandry Depaltment filed a counter stating that as per para no.18(i) of G.O.Ms.No.3 12 dt.30.10.2^{()14. 'entplowes} v;ho are members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on the bcrsis of their option i-f tltey are local candidates '; that petitioner is a Local candidatc o1'(iLrcldapah District of Andhra Pradesh State; anci so, petitioner ciinnoL contend that his allocation to the State of A.P. is incorect.

¶177

It is admitted that petitior.rer's rvilt had joined in the State of Telangana in 2017, but it is contended that petitioner falsely pleaded that his wife was working in Telangana State at the time of fi1ing of O.A.No.209 of 2016 and the said plea is not correct.

¶178

It is stated that though petitioner obtained oldel on 16.02.2016 in W.P.No.439l of 2016 that he should not bc relieved i'rom his present place of work in the post ol Pro.iect Dit'ector, ATMA, R.anga Reddy District in the Agriculture Department of the Telangana State, he was relieved because at the time of re-organization of Districts in the State of Telangana, the A t MA Scheme rvas rrcrgcd with Farmer Training Centers, etc. pursuant to a policy decision.

¶179

37, It is stated that petitioner was then repattiated on 0'7.03.2017 and asked to report to the Animal Husbandry Department.

¶180

It is contended that once the Government of India issued orders on 14.01.2016 allocating petitioner to the State o1' Andhra Pradesh,

¶181

MSR,J & TA,J wp(tr)_5482 2017& wp _24820 _2017

¶182

:: l3::

¶183

petitioner cannot :e cl( l)osting orclcrs in'felangana State and he must approach the Statc ofAndhra I'radesh tbr his posting.

¶184

The stand of the Statc lleorg:r n izatio n I)epartmcnt rep. bv its Secretary, General Adnrinistration^(SIl) Dcoartnrtnt of the State of Andhra Pradesh:

¶185

This party is alrayed as l'1 respondent in O.A.No.209 of 2016 I W.P. (TR) No.5482 of 2017. Its stand is identical to the stand of the State ofAndhra Pradesh

¶186

Thc stand of the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶187

No counter-affidavit was flled in both Writ Petitions by the State of Andhra Pladesh.

¶188

Thc strutl ofthc flnirin ol lndia

¶189

.ll. The Uniorr oi'Inclia which is^(r'r' rcspondent in WP(TR).No.5482 of 2017 admitted that l:1 posts of .loint Director were allotted to the State of Andhra l)radesh ancl 9 posts rvere allotted to the State ol Telangana; that nLrnrbcl o1- allocable enrployees in the cadre of Joint Directol rvere 27. r'nore than the sanctioned cadre-strength; excess allocable persons were allocated between the successor States on population ratio as per guidelines; and the petitioner though local to the State of Andhra Pradesh had opted for Telangana and so he was allotted to the State ofAndhra Pradesh as per para no. 18(f1 ofthe guidelines due to non-availabili4, of vacancy within the filled posts in Telangana. lt is srated that his reqLrest on 'spouse' grounds could not be..also accepted as his spouse belongs to Zonal cadre of Andhra Pradesh.

¶190

MSR,J & TA,J !p(rr) _5482_2017& sp 24820 20 r7

¶191

::14::

¶192

Altematively, reliance is placed on para l8(i) of the Guidelines dealing with Scheduled Tribe candidates rrentioned above.

¶193

It stated that the contention o1- the petitioncr that the llnal allocation order was issued w itl-rout considerins his claim is not valid as it is not feasible to mention names o i' each ancl ever'1 person, rvho has represented against tentative allocation, in ihe llnal allocation order. The guidelines for final allocation prescribes that the Advisory Committee will consider representations of the enrployees alter taking the views of the Administrative Depaftment concerned at a meeting attended by the representatives of the two States and the Central Govemments, before forwarding the same to the Central Govemment for taking final view in the matter. This procedure was duly followed by the Advisory Committee and lris l'eilreserltatiorl aiong rvith others was considered in the Sub-Cornmittee rneetir.rq heiii on I 6. I L2015

¶194

Considcration bv the Court

¶195

The question to be considered is:

¶196

'whether the Union oJ lndia in the perntanent allocation order No.5 (2)/201 6 dt. 14.01 .2016 had correctly allocated the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh by acting in accordance with the guidelines framed for^{allocationvide G.O.Ms.No.312General} Adminis tration (SR) Department dt. 3 0. I 0. 2 0 I 4 ?'

¶197

Vide G.O.Ms.No.3 12 General Administration (SR) Department d1.30.10.2014, the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh had notified the

¶198

MSR,J & TA,J wp(tr)_5482 2017& wp-24820 _2011

¶199

::15::

¶200

guidelines for flnal allocation ol State Cadre employees under the A.P.Reorganization Act, 2014 tiarned by the Govemment of India.

¶201

Para l8 of the said G.O. mentioned the guidelines/principles which viould be lirliorie-d lirr tlrc purpose o1-allocation of employees.

¶202

Clause (e) o1' I)ara I 8 srated that 'State Service employees who hold allocable posr.s shall be allocated alier seekins option from the entployees indicating their preJbrence to serve in either of the successor States after taking their option into consideration.'

¶203

Admittedly, petitioner gave his option for allocating him to the State o1'felangana on 07.03.2015.

¶204

49, Adrnittedly, of the total 23 posts in the Animal Husbandry Depafirnent of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh, 9 posts were allocated to the State of Telangana and l4 posts were allocated to the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶205

Clause l8(c) ol thc !r.uiclelincs states that allocable employees shall be considerecl .for allotment berween lhe successor State on the basis of senioriry list as available on 01-06-2014

¶206

Sub-clause (1) of Clause l8 states:

¶207

"The allocation shall be done in order o.f seniorit:t as available on June 01, 2014. Those who have opted, who are 'local candidates' relatable to the Stdte to which they have opted shall, in order of their bc constJered .for aLlocation .first. If atlocable^posts in that "Crprjy cotegory remain, then olhers u,ho have opted to the State may be allocoted in g19fu1 or seniori\t. If still posts remain allocation will be ttlr./, / Irrrt',,,,1.y 1'1 t,11i,',.11t

¶208

::16: I

¶209

Thus the guidelines identil,r^{'senioritl'as} one of the essential criteria on the basis of which offlcers ri or:ld bc allocatcd to one or the other of the newly fonned States.^(See N:rganna Vs. State of A.P.t).

¶210

The petitioner's position in thc ser.riority Iist of Joint Directors (clause-A) in the composite State ol'Andhra Pradcsl.r as on 02.06.2014 was 51.No.4.

¶211

The three people who were seniors to him by name Tanikonda Damodar Naidu, Koneti Venkata Ramana, M.Srinivasa Rao, who were local candidates of Andhra Pradesh, opted for the State of Andhra Pradesh and were allocated ten-rporarilv to the State of Andhra Pradesh as can be seen lrorn Norillcation dt. 12.06.1015 issued bv the General Administration (SR) Department of the Governrnent of Andhla Pradesh and also as pcr annc\Llre-l to the flnal allocation order No.5(2)/20 16 dt. I 4. I .20 1 6.

¶212

Therefore the petitioner is tl.re senior most arrong persons in the Cadre of Joint Director Class-A to opt for the State of Telangana.

¶213

In view of the fact that Clause (f) of Para l8 which states that 'those who have opted, who are local candidates relatable to the State to which they have opted, shall. in order of their seniori\t, be considered for allocation first', tb,e three pelsorrs senior to the petitioner who are local to the State of A.P. wele rightly allocated permanently to the said State.

¶214

I Order dt.18.08.2020 in W.P.No,4l39 of 2020 (DU)

¶215

MSR,J & TA,J wp(t)_54E2 2017& w^24820-2011

¶216

:tl1 ii

¶217

57 . Thereaftcr thc latter parl of sub-Clause (f of Clause 18 which says'if allocable posts in lhat categotl, remain, then, others who have opted to the State may be allocated in order qf seniorit-y'will come to the aid of the petitioner: and because he is the senior most available person in the cadrc ofjoint Director'- Class A, his claim for allocation permanently to the State of Telangana, would have primacy over the claims of all I.ris.jr.rniors in thc said cadre.

¶218

Instead of lbllowing tlie above plocedure prescribed by Clause (f) of Para 18, a strange interpretation was given in para-6 of its counter is adopted by the Union of India saying 'due to nonavailability of vacancy within the filled posts in Telangana' , petitioner, though he had opted for the State of Telangana, had to be allocated to the Statc of Andhra Pradesh.

¶219

This suggests that the Union of India gave no weight at all to the seniority of the petitioner or to the f-act that he was the senior most person in the cadr',. of .[oint I)ircctor'^{(-less-r</sup> to opt for the State of Telangana, proceeded to fill up the vacancies allocated to the State of Telangana by persons u'ho are 'natives ofTelangana', and then took a stand that the'r'c' alc no vncancics in I'elangana State, where the petitioner can be accommodated.^'Ihis procedure is patently contrary to Para l8(t) olthe Guidelines.}

¶220

As regards the clainr of the petitioner for allocation on 'spouse ground', admittedly Clause (l) of Para 18 of the Guidelines states as ,/ m4qr:

¶221

::ltl::

¶222

"Spouses in State cadre in (iovernrnent or in .\tatc Gotternment inslitulions, locctl bodies uncl thosc tln ure clecmr:d ,.rllocutecl as per the Act, shall as far as procticable. ha ttilotted to thc \uhtc Stute, ulter considering options made by them antl their locul candidoture. Spouses who are local candidates of a State shall be ullocated to that State. Spouses who belong to different States may lte albcated after considering their options.^"

¶223

In the option form given by the petitioner on 07.03.2015, petitioner had mentioned that his wife was a local candidate of Telangana State and lr,as employecl at that time in the c:itegory of Cooperative Sub-Registrar. in thr: Oillce ot' thc⁽ ommissioner for Cooperation and Registrar ol Cooperative Societies. Hl derabad in the State ofTelansana.

¶224

In the counter-affidav it illecl br the State o1'.,\ndhra Pladesh. in O.A.No.209 of 2016/V.M.A.No.398 o1' 2016iW.\i.M.P.(TR) No.701 of 2017 in W.P. ('IR) No.5.1U2 o1'20 l7 it is surtcrl ,rr pala-(.. (1) that the Commissioner, Registrar of Cooperative Societics, Hyderabad had stated in Lr.No.778iMi scl20 I 4 dr.22.04.201 5 that petitioner's spouse was working as Assistant Registrar in his O1'ficc at Hyderabad. Admittedly, the petitioner's spouse was initialll, appointed in 'nonlocal' category in Zone-II falling in the residuarl, State of Andhra Pradesh, because she was a 'local candidate' to the State of Telangana. She ultimately was posted on mutual rransl-er to the State ol Telangana in June, 20 I 7

¶225

Theretbre the Union cf lnclia cannot harp or1 the petitioner's wife's belonging to the Zonal cadle ol the Statc ol Anclhra Pladesh to

¶226

MSR,J & IA,J rvp(lr) 5482_2017& Np 24820_20t',/

¶227

:: I9::

¶228

deny petitioner's claiming for posting in the State of Telangana on spouse grounds. l'he State of Telangana cannot also contend that the petitioner incorrectly stated that his spouse was working in the State ofTelangana and that she does not 'belong to the State ofTelangana'.

¶229

64, l'his CoLrrt had heid in Dr.S.Shoba Rani Vs. the State Reorganization I)epartment, rcp. by its Secretary, General Administration (SR) Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad and othersz. Ms.l).Sujatha Vs, LJnion of tndia and othersr and in P.Damodar Vs. T.S.lndustrial Development Corporation Limiteda that the basic princrplc undellvir.ig Para I 8(l) olthe Guidelines framed for allocation of State cadre ernployees r.rnder the A.P. Reorganization Act,2014 is to protect and keep together employed spouses who would otherwise be separated owing to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the biJurcation oJ the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh; and Para lB (l) states in no uncertain terms that allocations shall, as far^{as practicable.be ntade so as to keepthe spouses together, and the} intent antl imp()t't of bifitt't:tttion ol the ersnvhile State of Andhra Prade.th is ttot to hrtuk up nt(tt ria,{L's.

¶230

65, Therelbrc Lhr pctitioncr'\'as entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana c\ en or1 spouse ground and the Union of India without taking note of the above facts erred in re.iecting petitioner's request for allocation to thc Statc ol Tclaugana even or1 spouse ground.

¶231

'^{zb r(:) alo zoz (on)}

¶232

'^{zo relay lLozo} 1os; o zozol+1 nlo :sr 1oe;

¶233

\ISI{.J & TA.J \p(rr) i.l8l 2017& rvp_2Jtl20_2017

¶234

::20::

¶235

66, As regards reliance by the Union ollndia on Clause⁽ⁱ⁾ olPara 18 of the guidelines t.e. 'employees who ara members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes shall be considered for allocation on the basis of their option. if they are local candidates', in his option form dt.07.03.2015, petitioni:r did not ini,oke the said subClause and instead sought preferential allotment Lurder Clause (l) of Para-18. Both the State of Telangana and tl.re^(-lrriorr ollndia therefore ought not to have considcred his clainr uirder Clair.e⁽ⁱ⁾ 01- Para l8 of the Guidelines.

¶236

We are also of the opinion that thc said Clausc (i) of Para l8 is intended to benefit Scheduled Castc:s or Schedulc lribe ernployees, and they can waive it, if it's application is not in their interest and conflicts with their desire to live with their sporrsc. l'he lJnion of India, therefore cannot invoke Ciausc (i) oi'Pa.ir l8 and insist for posting the petitioner in a State where his spouse is not posted, and separate the two spouses.

¶237

Also since the petitioner had studied Classes VIII to X in Khammam District in the State of^'lelangana and he states that upto post graduation, he studies in tl-re State ol Telanrrirrra. under Para 7 of the Presidential order,l975. he is a'local caudiilrtc' o1'the State of Telangana only, but ignoring this f'act and simpll taking note of his place of birth as Cuddapah in Anclhre l'radesh Stric. he \'as wrongly treated as a 'loacl candidate' fbr the State of Andhra Pradesh. So eva

¶238

MSR.J & TA.J wp(tr) 5482 2017& rvp-24820_2017

¶239

:i2lii

¶240

under Clause (i) of para 18, petitioner is eligible to be allotted to the State ol Telansana

¶241

We therefbre hold that the pemanent allocation of the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh by the Union of India is arbitrary, unreasorrable and contrarl, to Article l4 of the Constitution of India and the guidelines notified vide G.O.Ms.No.312 dt.30.10.2014. The point is answered accordingly.

¶242

10, We also lrolcl that tlrc petitioner is entitled to be allocated to the State of Telangana permanentl;- vr,.e.f'. 11.01.2016.

¶243

Admittedl\ rhis Court on 16.1.201(> in W.P.No.439l of 2016 directed that thc petitioner shall not be relieved from his present place of work at Hyderabacl till the disposal of the interlocutory application by the Tribunal.

¶244

In view of the said order, the petitioner continued to work as Project Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District in the Agriculture Depanment on dcputation.

¶245

But admittedly the Adrrinistrative Tribunal did not pass any orders in the interlocutory application of the petitioner as directed by the High Courl rir W.P.r.,,-o.4j9l ol'2016r and yet, after the final allocation ordel r'r,as passecl on 14.01 .20 16, petitioner was relieved fi'om ATMA, Ilanga Reddy District. in the Agriculture Department vide G.O.l{t.No.1 I dt.0-1.01.1016 oi' the Government of Telangana, Animal Husbandlv l)epaftnlcnt and consecluential orders were issued

¶246

...)1..

¶247

i\ISR.J & TA.J \r p(tr)_5482_2017& ..,p-24820 _2017

¶248

vide Memo No.8356 / AGRl.l (l) I 2016 dt.16.01.2017 repatriating the petitioner to his parent Departrnent of Animal Husbandry.

¶249

Petitioner states that he was repatriated from the post ofProject Director, ATMA, Ranga Reddy District on 07.03.1017 and he made a representation on 08.03.2017 1o the Special Chiel Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government ol Telangana lbr giving him postlng.

¶250

It is the contention of petitioner that the order No.5 (2) of20l6 dt.14.01.2016 permanentl) allocating, thc petitioncl to the State of Andhra Pradesh itself states in para nt,.l thereol iirat it would not come into effect in respect of any pelson who iras obtained 'stay order' from a Court of Law against his allocation to any of the successor States till the time such stav order is vacated: and since the order passed by the Division Bench on 16.02.2015 ir.r Writ Petition No.4391 of 2016 directing the petitioner not to be disturbed frorn his current posting is in the naturc o1' suclr^'sta1' olcicr''. the petitioner cannot be asked to repofi to the State o1'Andhra Praciesh.

¶251

We find force in the pctitioner''s contcntion anci agree u,ith it.

¶252

So the petitioner cannot be dcnied salalv b1" the State of Telangana from 8.3.2017 till date on the basis of the said relieving order or the permanent allocation order F.No.2910112016 - SR(S) dt.14.01.2016 (Order No.5(2)12016) Ministry o1' Pelsonnel, PG &

¶253

:i23i:

¶254

MSIi,J & TA,J wp(lr)_5482_201 7& \,p 24820 2017

¶255

Pensions, Departntcnt of Personnel and Training, Government of India.

¶256

The denial o1' posting to the petitioner Il'om 08.03.2017 till date and denying salary to the petitioner from that date onwards by the State of Telangana is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner, though keen to work, was not allowed to work by the State of Telangana, he is entitled to be paid salary liom 08.03.20 l7 till the date ofposting by the State of Telangana with intcrest @ 1 p.a.

¶257

Admittedll,. irrplead applications filed by one V.Lakshma Reddy and^{(l.lirLrrnranth} Reddr r,idc M.A.No.529 of 2016 in O.A.No.209 of .10l6 u,ere clisnrissed on 19.021.2016 itself when the matter was pencling befbre the r\dministrative Tribunal.

¶258

ln 80. As regalcls. W.P.NI,}'].No.33396 of 2017, again filed W.P.No.24820 o I 201 7, which is renurrbered as I.A.No. 1 of 2020, by V.Lakshma Reddy and Dr.S.Ramachander, they are at Si.No.6 and 7 in the Seniority l . ist of Joir.rt Dilector CIass-A, while the petitioner is at Sl.No.4 in the said Seniority List.

¶259

Allocation of the petitioner to the State of Telangana permanently would have to be in the first vacancy out of9 vacancies earmarked for the State of^'l'clangana.

¶260

T'he plopo:.,.rii pafties'^()ption to the State of Telangana is not at all affEbted becausc they arc.iuniors to him in service and they can be

¶261

MSR.J & TA,J wp(tr)_5482_2017& w]4E20_20t1

¶262

ii24il

¶263

and have been accommodated in one of the other vacancies allotted to the said State.

¶264

They suffer no prejudice by thc allocatior ol the petitioner permanently to the State ol'[clansarla

¶265

Therefore, they canr.rot be said to be aflectecl parties entitled to be impleaded in W.P.No.24820 o1'l0l 7

¶266

Therefore the implead application IA.No. I of 2020 in W.P.No.24820 of 2017 is disrnissed.

¶267

Conclusion

¶268

Accordingly, W.P.(TR) No.5482 of 2017 and W.P.No.24820 of 2017 are allowed; the proceedirrgs IJ.No.2910 I¹²⁰¹ 6 - SR(S) dt.14.01.2016 (Order No.5(2y20 l6) ,1ii.ristr1' o1' l)elsonnel, PG & Pensions, Depaftment o1' Personnel ar:d Trainin!].. Covernment of India (6'r' respondent in W.P. (IIt) No.5r182 o1' l0 i'i I as regards the petitioner is set aside; and the 6't'resl;onr,ient in W.i' I ll{)No.5482 of 2017 is directed to permaner.rtly allocate the petiticr.rel to the State of Telangana w.e.f . 14.01 .20161 the State of Telangana shall forthwith give posting to the petitioner in thc⁽ acllc o1'.loin', ililector- Class-A in the Animal Husbandry Depaftment ol the said State and also pay within four (04) weeks, salaries to the petilioner as Joint DirectorClass-A in the Animal Husbandry Depaftment tiorn 08.03.2017 till the petitioner is given posting by the said State with interest @ 7Yo p.a.. No costs.

¶269

MSR,J & TA,J wp(tr)_5482_20I 7& \r'p 2,1820_2017

¶270

::25::

¶271