Allowed

I.Narasimha Murthy Hyd v. Secy Min of Law J and Home Affairs New Delhi and 8 Others

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/6975/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disputes concerning relieving orders and unpaid salaries of Board of Intermediate Education employees were held covered by an earlier staff-allocation judgment. The court applied that judgment mutatis mutandis and allowed all four writ petitions without costs.

What did the court decide?

The earlier judgment in W.P.No.17883 of 2016 was made applicable mutatis mutandis to all four writ petitions, which were allowed without costs.

I.Narasimha Murthy Hyd Vs Secy Min of Law J and… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

I t {1

¶2

J t

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT^HYOERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL

¶5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE THE CHTEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVTLI

¶8

WRIT P ETITION Nos.6975 3261 3367 & 3550 of2016

¶9

! t I

¶10

Between:

¶11

WRIT PETITION N O: 6975 oF 2016

¶12

b#,1s3ir!H#:"J,i1?:s,i1"d,f '8fl^{,s3f '[ilJ,B?Ta,o'i#'r',n,"rmediare}

¶13

AND

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

The Union of Inr R"o ov its secretary, Ministry or Law, Justice and Home

¶16

;. ig! f#.3#i'

¶17

,ffJlm:lif,$*'*3J,iiflTit,?r;,*tlt,:tr.T,5;f^{itr"nt,;;?,1""""}

¶18

; 1;;ffiffffi:.f*,r+,m"n+sl,'liir'ffi [:; .. ",

¶19

;tr"##?i#:.frftd,{,a,E$t#tr,iEiiflT*#p#tfffi,#, ,,1,{S,d=l*t+"f,8:ffi :lrJf^{rfi,,,,ffii[:il11.,::;::J:.,,}

¶20

RE.P.NDENT.

¶21

",.",,::::::::Hi::':"'26orrheconsriturion pteased ro issue u w.i, ,-rt::-"'0"'', ,ruo"".i1^"'.':-'':^{praying that} in the ,*****,***ffffi

--------------7

09.11.2015 of the 9th respondent, subsequently^{to direct the Respondents8 and} I to continue the^petitioner in the^{office of the 9th Respondent with all} consequential benefits.

¶26

l.A. NO:1 OF 201^6(W PMP.^{NO: 8880 0F 2016}

¶27

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition'the High courtmaybe pleased to} suspend the^Proceed ings Rc.No.19^{tA-A212016, dt: 25'02'2O'16 of the 8th} prior relieving^{proceedingsof the 8th Respondentvide} respondent^{as well as} Dt: 07.11.2015^{with regard to the pelitioner and} Rc No.409/A-A1/2014, consequential^{Proceedings Rc No'Spl-1lRlO(TC)'Hyderabad,dt: 09 11 2O15of} the^{9th respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition} t.A.^NO :2O^{F 2016(wPMP. NO:88810F2016}

¶28

that^{in the circumstances stated} Petition^{under Section 151 CPCpraytng} he High^{CourtmaY be Pleased to} in the^{affidavitfiled in support of the petition ' t} ndents^{5 to Ito PaY the sa} la ry and^{arrearsof salary to the} direct^{the Respo} rs^{passed in W P No'3261 of} in terms^{of orde} petitioner^{fromthe relieving date'} Court, Pending^{disPosal of the writ Petition} 2016,^{dl'.24.02.2016 of this Hon'ble} Coun^{sel for the Petitioners:SRI' PONNAMASHOK GOUD} RAPU^RAJESHWARA I NAMAVA T SOLICITO^{R GENERAL} ASSISTAN Counsel^{for the ResPondentNos.1 & 2:} RAO,^SR

¶29

counser^{for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: N.NEAPPEARED} Counsel^{for the Respondent Nos'6 & 7: THEADVOCATE GENERAL} Counsel^{for the Respond* *"''t SMT M' SIVA JYOTHI'SC FOR APBIE} Gounsel^{for the Respon; -"t't& 9: SRI D'L'PANDU' Sc FoR TSBIE}

¶30

Be'iween: """ffii\tffitflili+Hs:aB::i'i"l:'"'

Assistant'

...PETITIONER

H["ffiflJ3ffiffi$tr3

I I

AND

1 . The Union of lndia, Rep. by^its Secretary,^{Ministry of Law, Justice and Home} Affairs, New Delhi,

¶38

1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of^{Personnel, P.G. &} Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3rd Floor,^{Lok Nayak Bhavan,} Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶39

1. The Advisory Committee, Andhra^{Pradesh Re-Organisation,Sth Floor, C-} block, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad,^{Rep. by its Chairman.}

¶40

1. The State R6-Organization Department,^{Rep. by its ltrlemberSecretary, SR of} Andhra Pradesh, Secrelariat, Hyderabad.

¶41

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,^{Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Departmentof} School Education (lntermediate Education),^{Secretariat,Hyderabad-50-002-2.}

¶42

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by^{its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher} Education (lntermediate Education), Secretariat,^{Hyderabad-S0o022.} ..

¶43

1. The Board bf lntermediate Education, State of^{Andhra Pradesh, Nampally,} Hyderabad, Rep. by^its Secretary.

¶44

1. The Board of lnterriediate^{Education, State of Telangana, Nampally,} Hyderabad, ReP. by its Secretary.

¶45

1. T6e Regiorial lnspeiction Officer,'Nizamabad,^{Nizamabad District, Board of} lntermediate Education, State^of Telangana. ...RESPONDENTS

¶46

Petition under Article 226 of^{the Constitution of India praying that in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiledtherewith, the High Court may be} pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more^{particularlyone in the nature of} Writ of Mandamus to set-aside^{the impugned Proceedings Rc.No.409/A-A1/2014'} dl.O7.11r.2015 of the 8th^{Respondentas well as consequential Proceedings} Rc.No.03/RlO/TSBIE/NZB/2O10,^{dt.10.1'1.2015of the gthRespondent,} subsequently to direct the^{Respondents to grant all consequential benefits,}

¶47

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016^{(WPMP. NO:4162 0F 2016)}

¶48

Petition under Section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Courtmaybe pleasedto} direct the Respondents to^{paythe arrears of salariesto the petitioner fromthe} relieving dale, in terms^{of orders passedin W.P.No.39008of 2015 and Batch,} d1.28.12.2015 of this^{Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the writ petition'}

¶49

¶50

¶51

l.A. NO: 2 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 4't63 0F 2016)

¶52

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 suspend the impugned Proceedings Rc.No.409/A-A112014, d1.O7.11.2015 of the 8th Respondent as well as consequential Proceedings Rc.No.03/RlO/ TSBIE/NZB/ 20'10, dated 10.11.2015 of the^gth Respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶53

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. PONNAM ASHOK GOUD

¶54

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA RAO, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶55

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4: NONE APPEARED

¶56

Counsel fc,r the Respondent Nos.5 & 6: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶57

Counsel fc'r the Respondent No.7: SMT M. SIVA JYOTHI, SC FOR APBIE

¶58

Counsel fc'r the Respondent Nos.8 & 9: SRI D.L. PANDU, SC FOR TSBIE

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO: 3367 OF 2016

¶60

Between:

¶61

V.Venkata Swamy, S/o.Late V.Ramaswamy, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Superintendent, O/o.Board of lntermediate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

¶62

...PETITIONER

¶63

AND

¶64

1 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Schrrol Education (lntermediate Education), Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022_

¶65

2 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education (lntermediate Education), Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022. The Board of lntermediate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary.

¶66

1. The Board of lntermediate Education, State of Telangana, Nampally,

¶67

Hyd".-rabad. Rep. by its Secretary.

¶68

1. The Regional l nspectior Off icer, Ivtahabubnagar, Ivlahabubnagar District, Boad of lntermediate Education, State of Telangana.

¶69

...RESPONDENTS

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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to direct the 3rd Respondent to pay the Monthly Salary of the Petitioner from 01.08.20'15 till date, with all consequential benefits.

¶74

l.A. NO:^'l OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 4306 OF 2016)

¶75

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the 3rd Respondent to pay the monthly salary to the petitioner from February, 20'16 onwards, pending disposal of the writ^petition.

¶76

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M.V. SUBBA REDDY

¶77

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION (AP)

¶78

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL

¶79

Gounsel for the Respondent No.3: SMT M. SIVA JYOTHI, SC FOR APBIE

¶80

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5: SRI D.L. PANDU, SC FOR TSBIE

¶81

WRIT PETITION NO: 3550 OF 2016

¶82

Between:

¶83

N.Mohan, S/o. Late Chengalrayudu, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Driver, O/o.Regional Inspection Officer, Sangareddy, Medak District, Board of lntermediate Education, Telangana state'

¶84

...pETrroNER

¶85

AND1. The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Nlinistry of Law, Justice and Home Affairs, New Delhi.

¶86

The Union of lndia, Rep. by its Secretary, Ivlinastry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶87

The Advisory Committee, Andhra Pradesh Re-Organization, 5th Floor, C- block, Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Chairman.

¶88

The State Re-Organization Department, Rep. by its Member Secretary, SR of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶89

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of School Education (lntermediate Education), Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022.

¶90

The State of Telangana, Rep, by its Prinqpal Secretary, Department of Higher Education (lntermediate Education), Secretariat, Hyderabad-500 022.

¶91

The Board of lntermediate Education, State of Andhra Pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary.

¶92

The Board of lntermediate Education, State of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Secretary.

¶93

The Regional lnspection Officer, Sangareddy. Ivledak District, Board of lntermediate Education' state of relangana

...RESpoNDENTs

Petition under Anicle 226 of^{the constitution of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavit filed therewith, the High courtmay be} pleased to issue a writ, order^{or direction more particularlyone in the natureof} writ of tr/landamus to set-aside^{the impugned Proceedings Rc.No.409/A-A1/2014'} d1.07.11.2015 of the^{8th Respondentas well as consequentialProceedings} Rc.No.149/RIo/TSBIE/SRD/2o15,^{d1.09.11.2015of the gth Respondent,} subsequently to direct^{the Respondents to grant all consequentialbenefits.} l.A. NO: 1 Of: 2016(WPMP.^{NO:454,t oF 2016)}

¶99

Petition under section^{15'l cPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the Highcourt may be pleased to direct} the Respondents^{to pay the arrearsof salaries to the petitionerfrom the relieving} dale, in terms of^{orderspassedin W.P.NO'39008of 2015 andBatch'} d1.28.12-2015 of this^{Hon'ble Court, pending disposal of the writ petition'} l.A. NO: 2 Of:^{2016(WPMP.NO:4542 0F 2016)}

¶100

Petition under section^{151 cPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in^{supportof the petition,the Highcou( may be pleasedto} suspend the impugned^{Proceedings Rc.No.409/A-A112014,d|.o7.11'2015of the} 8th Respondent as well as consequential^Proceedings Rc.NO.149/R|O/TSBIE/sRD/2015,^{dt.09.',I1.2015 of the 9th Respondent,pending} disposal of the writ Petition.

¶101

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRl. PONNAMASHOKGOUD}

¶102

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2: SRI NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWARA} RAO, ASSISTANT^{SOLICITORGENERAL}

¶103

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.3 & 4: NONE APPEARED}

¶104

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.6 & 7: THEADVOCATE GENERAL} Counsel for the Respondent^{No.7: SMT M. SIVAJYOTHI, SC FOR APBIE} Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.8 & 9: SRID'L' PANDU'SC FOR TSBIE} The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶105

i 1

¶106

THE HON'BLE TIIE CHIEFJUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶107

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE HINAND KT]'MAR SHAVILI

¶108

W.P.Nos.6975. 3261. 3367 and 3550 of 2016

¶109

COMMON ORDER'. 0'..th tlod'b/. tt' Lhd ltjht \t! ,1.h!,ri\t \ilnu)

¶110

lrarned counsel for the parues \'ere farr enough 1n informing this Court that the controversy involvcd in thc present cases has aluea.dy been adjudicated or-r account of an order darcd 19.03.2021, passed by a Drvision llcnch of this^(lourt in \P.P.No.1 7883 of 201.C

¶111

The Order dated 19.03.2021 rcecls as unclcr:

¶112

"The petitioners in this Wrir Irctition are cmplo-r'ees of the Boatd of Intermecliate Education of thc composite Statc of Andhra Pradesh.

¶113

They have fled this Writ Petiuon challcngrng thc acuon of tespondents in not finalizing thc motlrr[r-rcs [or drstribr-ruon of pcrsonnel of the Board of Interrncdr:rrc I:.ducrrron of thc composite State of Andhra Pradc.ir bc(leer tlrt succcssor cntitics i.e. 3.d respondent and^-1'r' responclcnt ()i lltc Sterc oI Andhra Pradesh and^'fclangana rcspcctitcll

¶114

Adminedly, the compositc State oi .\ndhra Praicsh was bifutcated into nerv State of^{'1'elanq;rrlr} nrd tlrc rcsiduarv

¶115

¶116

¶117

State of Andhra Pradesh on 02-06-2014 under the A.P. Rcorganization Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act) rv.e-f.02 0(t-2014.

¶118

l'hc Iloard of Intermediate Education of the composite Statc of Andhra Pradesh was included in Schedule X appended to the said Act as it was a State^wide I nstitution.

¶119

Thc State of^'felangana issued G.O.Ms.No.25 Higher I,lducatjon ([ ts) Departmenr dt.04-72-2014 and constituted the l1oard of [ntermediate Education for the State of Telangana (1,r' rcspondent).

¶120

Thcrcafter the erstwhile Board of Intermediatc l ltlucation l;ccamc the Board of Intetmediate Education for r he rcsiduar! State of Andhta Pradesh (3d^tespondent)-

¶121

Pctitioners contend that they are all botn and educatcd irr Hvdcral;ad and they belong to the State of Telangana, but rlrc^.1,r' rcsprrndent issucd ptoceedings ot 24-12-2014 dra(ing onh'cenarrr cmplovccs in the list enclosed along with thc said orclcr to thc 3'd respondent, pending finalization of^modalitics arrd thar thc petitioncrs continue to ',vork with the Board of Inrcrm€diate Education in the State of Andhta Pradesh.

¶122

Pctiti..rners contend that they were promoted to thc crdre oi Strperintendents prior to 02-06-2014, that the^.+'h rt:spondcnt rcgularized the scrvices of certain employccs in thc catlrc of Supcrintendents by issuing procecdings

¶123

¶124

¶125

dt.15-12-20'15 and included several juniors to the pctitioncrs and excluded rhe names of pcuuoners.

¶126

They contend that 4rh respondent issued ^ Memorandum on 01-06-2016 communicadng the provisional seniority list of Superintendents inviting objections for ther seniority. But in the said seniority list, the 4,h respondcnt did not show all individuals but only certain Superinrendents rvhcr havc completed 3 years of sewicc. Thcy objccted ro rhc provisional seniority List contending that the said seniorit lisr should contain alt individuals who arc rvorking as Supcrintendents irespective of their lengrh of scn-icc.

¶127

f0. Petitioners also contend that in rhe meanLrme, 3d respondent is discriminating against thc petitioncrs on thc ground that they belong to the State of T'elangana, but rvorking in the State ofAndhra ptadesh.

¶128

I l. Petitioners, thetcfote, pray that a dircction bc gir.en tt> respondent Nos.3 and 4 t<s ftnahze modalitrcs [<rr fina] allocation of staff between 3.d respondcnt and .1,r, rcsp<>ndcnt bv placing reliance on Section 82 of the .\ct.^'l hcr riso contended that they gave representztions on 30-12-2011. 14-12-2015, 08-12-2015 and 71-72-2015 to rhc -+rh rcspondcrrr to considcr their case for allotrnent to 4,1, rcspondcnt br. .-rrruc of their local status, but 4th respondent had nor acted trpon rr and they were forced to file this !(tit petiuon.

¶129

Learned counsel for petitioners reiterarcd rhc said contendons.

¶130

: :4::

¶131

I I

¶132

Hc also rclied on a decision of this Court in B.Sambasiva Rao vs. State of Telangana and othersl rvherein this^(lourt had dealt with Enal allocation of employees of A,l). Statc Residential Educational Institutions Society bcrwccn its successors Telangana State Residential Ilducational Institutions Society CIREIS) and newly constiturcd i-P. State Residential F-ducational Institutions Society (APREIS).

¶133

14, Respondcnt Nos.2 and 4 filed countet-affidavit admitting that thc lloard of Intermediate Education of the compositc State of Andhra Pradesh is mentioned in Schedulc -X of rhc r\ct, but contended that the Govetnment has not issued anv nrodalities or guidelines in Schedule X Institudons. It is adnutted that the Secretary of 4'h respondcnt lloarcl had drafted certain staff wotking at Head ()fficc oi undivided Board of Intermediate Education on 21 12-2011 pcnding finalization of modalities for the bifurcation of strff under Scction 82 of the Act. It is c,rntcndecl that pctidoncrs are rvorking under the control of thc 1"1 respondcnt and thev arc not on the roles of the 4th rc:spondcnt, lnd the provisional seniority in the cadre of S upcrinrerrclcnrs is communicatcd to the^eligible S,-rlcrinrcrrclcnts ri ho lrave completcd 3 yeats of service^as or I I^()it 2(⁾ I 5. Ir is srilrcd that the request of employees p:e scntl lrrrrkinu u irh thc -j'l respondent to take themⁱⁿ thc^-l'h rcsponderrt on thc.qround that they have studiedⁱⁿ Filderabad and in^'Iclangana Distticts before filling^the

¶134

'^{:o:t(t ) aLttr,lo rts) (og)}

¶135

I I I I i

¶136

I i I

¶137

proposed vacancies by promotion from feeder category, cannor be considered by 4,h respondent tvithout final allocadon of staff between the two States.

¶138

However, Sri Radhive Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader attached to the Office of the learned '\dvocate^{General has faityadmitted that rhe issuc in tlls} casc is covered by the judgment in B.Sambasiva Rao (1 supra).

¶139

16.^'lhe 3.d respondent also filed a countet-affidavit stating that the allocation of employees was not made either as pcr pun'terv of the Presidential Order or the Kamalanathan Comrnittee guidelines while taking the employees [or 4, respondent, and that certain employees who actually belong t<r Tclangana State as per Ptesidential Order such as the pctitioncrs, are continuing to work $/ith the 3.d respondent. It is also stated that several employees who actually belong to the .\ndhra Pradesh State as per the Presidential Ocler arc r','orking in thc 4th respondent and names of certain cmplovces har-c bcen given. It is again admitted that the divisron o[ pr.rsts rn each category of the erstwhile Board of Intermediatc frducauon of composite State of Andhta pradcsh was nor donc ofticially by the Secretaries of respondent Nos.3 and -1 lnd that the modalities for bifurcation of staff undcr Secuon 82 of the Act have not been finalizcd berrvceri respr>ndent Nos,3 and 4. It is stated that only some of rhc tmplovccs rvere providcd to work in the 4,b responclcnt anri rcsl rtrc rr. orking in the 3.d respondent.

:lilriI

i I rlI itil il ltil iI'

¶144

¶145

'fhe considerati on bv the Court

¶146

F'rom the facts^{narratcdabove,it is clear that the Boatd} of Intermediate Education of the composite^{Stateof Andhra} lltadesh is mentioncd in Schcdulc X to^the Act^{at SI.No.90.}

¶147

In B.Sambasiva Rao (1 supra),^this Cout^had conside red thc issue of^allocatit>n of^{employeesof erstwhile} .{,.P. State Residential l-ducational^{Institutions Sociery} betweeo Telangana llcsidcnual^{EducationalInstitutions} Socicty (i-RIllS) and ncrv .\P^{ResidentialEducational} lnstitutions Socicgv (APRIIIS) constituted aftet 02-06-2074. 'Ihis Court had he Id that thc organizations like APREIS covered by Schedulc-X to thc Act, would be covered^by Section 82 of the Act; that^{the said} provision^{specificallydeals} with employees of Public Scctor Undertakings^and it^stipulates that or.r and from the appointed date^{i.e., 02.06.2074, $e} emplolees of State Public Scctor^{Undertakings,Corporations} - and other Autonomous llodrcs shall continue to function in such Undertakings,^{(iorporations} or Autonomous^{Bodies fot} a pcriod o[ onc vear, and during this period,^{the Corpotate} Body conccrncd shall dctermine the modalities^fot distributing thc pcrsonncl bcnvcen the two^{successorStates.} It was also hcld that Section 82 of thc^{Act bringswithinits} ambit rhc e tnplovccs <>f autonomous^{bodicslike the APREIS;} and thc succcssor Statts^{'IclauqanaandAndhraPradeshate} not rccluircd ro dissoh-c tlresc rutonomous bodies;^{and the} rvorci 'bcnrccn r\'() succcss()r States' uscd in^{Section 82 of the} Act carr onh rctlr to thc aut()noln()us^bodics of^{two successor} Statcs.

¶148

It also held that the modalities for distributing^the personnel bctween the two successot States can only^mean thc modalities for distribudng the^{petsonnel between} the^two succcss()r Starc Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations^and Autonomous Bodies only and not distribution of^such personncl benveen the respective State Governments,^{as that} rvould makc employees of such Corporations /^Undertakings /^{Companies ctc.,employeesof the Governments of the two} succcssor States

¶149

It also held that Section 82 of the Act tequires^the Corporate Ilodics themselves to determine the modalities^for r-lisriburing its pcrsonnel between the two successor^States; and that each of the Corporate^{Bodies independendy andon} its ourr accord should ptescribe modalities for distribution^of rts cmplovces benvcen the two successot States.

¶150

tt also clarified that [mitation of one year^prescribed rn Sectron tl2 lor determining the^modalities of distribution^of pcrsorrncl rs not mandatory, that such PrescriPtion of time^is onil dirccton', and thc^mere fact that the^{oneyearperiodhas} clapscd, docs not prohibit any of the Public^Sector Undcrtakrngs from determining modalities^fot, or^{for the} actual alloc:rtion of its employees between the two^successor Srares thcrc:rticr.

¶151

It rlsri dcclared that failure to complete the^exercise of irpp()rri( )nnrcnr r:I thc assets and liabi]ities of the IX^andX ScircclLrlc cntirrcs, rvould havc no bearing on the distribuuon o[ cmpkrvccs of I)ublic Sectot Undertakings/ ( irrporations u';\utonomous Bodies between the cntities controlled cscltrsir-cll t>v each of thc successor States. This

Court relied upon thc decisionsⁱⁿ G.Rama^{MohanRao and} another Vs. Government of Andhra^Pradesh and another2, P.B.Karunakar and others Vs. State of Telangana and othersr and Rani Vs. Principal Secretary' Higher Education Department and othersa.

¶156

In our considercd opinion, ,thc Board of^Intetmediate Education of thc cornbined Statc of^{,-\ndhra Pradeshstands} on the same f<roting as ,.P. Statc llesidcntial^Educational Institutions Sociew of the combincd^State of :\ndhra^Pradesh, and the principle laid dorvn thcrein^applies to the^Board of Intermediate Llducation of thc combined State of^,\ndhra Ptadesh as rvell-

¶157

!0e therefore direct that rcspondent No.3 shall^prepare the final seniorirv lists of employees in all categodes^as on 2.6.2014; and respondcnt Nt.ls.3 and 4 shall^discuss with each other and agree on thc modalitics/guidclines^for allocadon of emplolccs ort basis of^{dre said} scniority^{list, and} 8nalize the modalitics frrr llkrcirtion of cmplol,ces of^the Board of lntennecliltc F.ducation o[ rhc combined State of Andhra Pradcsh bcnvccn thc rcspondcnt Nos.3 and⁴ within two (02) months from rlrc datc of^rcccipt of^{a copy of this} otder; and the allocation^of the cmpkrlccs^{shall be doncas per} the said norms rvithin onc month of^finalization of^such modalitics/guidctincs. .\ll othcr uricvanccs of thc petitioners are left opcn to bc crrnsidcrcd in separate procccdings^{to be} initiated after thc Gn;rl allot ation^{<tf rhc ernplolccs.}

¶158

'?2017^{(6) ALD rot (l)ir)} I zotg(:) eLo.rzo (ou) o 20l7 (4) ALT r7i

¶159

¶160

::9::

¶161

The Writ Petidon is allowed with the above ditecticrns. No costs."

¶162

In the ligh r of rhe aforesaid order, no further orders are

¶163

required to be passed in the present writ petitions. The judgment delivered in W.P.No.17883 of 2016 shall be appltcable mutatit

¶164

mutandis in the present cases also.

¶165

Following the same, these Writ pedtions are allowed.

¶166

Let a copy of the order dated 19.03.2021, passed by this Court in W.P.No.17883 of 2016, be kept on record in the present

¶167

cas e s.

¶168

The miscellaneous applicat_ions pending ln these rvrit

¶169

petrtions, if any, shall stand closed. There,phal be no order as to

¶170

COS tS

¶171

¶172

SD/.T.KRISHNA KUMAR DEPUTYAEGISTRAR

/iTRUE COPY//

secrldforrrcen

To,

The Secretary, Ir,4inistry of Law, Justice and Home Affairs, Union of lndia, New Delhi

¶177

The Secretary, Ministry of personnel, p.G. & pensions Department of personnet & Trainino. Union of lndia, 3rd Floor, Lok Nayali Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.^-

¶178

3 Ili" -CFitpan, Ad.visory Committee, Andhra pradesh Re-Organisation, 5th . lloo!,^{L;-btock,Tetangana Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶179

. lloo!,^{L;-btock,Tetangana Secretariat,} Hyderabad.

¶180

1. fhe.Member Secretary, State Re-Organi2ation Department, SR of Andhra Praoesh, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

"--._...--

,-__

,/ I

The Principal Secretary, Department of School Education (lntermediate

¶187

^{Educ_ation),State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat,Hyderabad-SO0 022.}

¶188

1. The Principq.LSecreJ{y, Department of Higher Educition (lntermediate Education), State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad-sOO OZZ.

¶189

The Secretary, Board of lniermediate Educatioh, State of Andhra pradesh, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶190

B. The Secretary, Board of lntermediate Education, State of Telangana, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶191

The Regional lnspection Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District, Board of lntermediate Education. State of Telanoana.

¶192

10.The Regional lnsp.ection.Officer, Maha6ulnagar, Mahabubnagar District, Board of lntermediate Education, State of Tei-angana.

¶193

11.The Re,gional lnspection Officer,'sangareddy, M;dak District, Board of

¶194

12.One CC to SRI. PONNAM ASHOK GOUD, Advocate [OpUC]

¶195

1 3. Two CCs to the Advocate General, High Court for the State oi Telangana at

¶196

Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶197

14.Two CCs to GP for General Administration, Hiqh Court for the State of Teiangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶198

One CC to Sri Namavarapu Rajeshwara Rao, Assistant Solicitor General

¶199

[oPUC]

¶200

One C(l to SN/T. M. SIVA JYOTHI, SC FOR APBTE tOpUCl

¶201

17, One CC to SRI D.L. PANDU, SC FOR TSBTE [OPUC]

¶202

1B.One CO to SRi. M.V. SUBBA REDDYAdvocatb topubl

¶203

1 9. Two CD Copies

¶204

One Sprare Copy CHR SW

¶205

(Along rvith order copl in W.P.No. 17881/2016 DT.l9/01/2021 ) h.--

{

( HIGH COURT t

DATED:1210412022

COMM13N ORDER

W.P.Nos.6975,3261, 3367 & 3550 of 2016

¶215

{HE S14 t6 o,.
23 iEP 7W
-q
!, v"t/
).) <br>

¶216

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS

¶217

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE M.S.R'\MACHANDRARAO}

¶218

ANT)

¶219

TIONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE l"VINOD KUVIAR}

¶220

WRIT PETITION^{No.I7883 of 2016}

¶221

BDEBj.^{G". Hon'bleSri Justice M'S'Ramachandra Rao)}

¶222

The petitioners^{in this Writ Petitionare employees of the Board} of Intermediate^{Education of the composite Stateof AndhraPradesh'} The 1't^{petitionerhas withdrawn from the writ petition on 16'02'2021'} So, in this^{order, the relief granted is confined to petitioners other than} the l"t^{petitioneri.e., petitioners 2 & 3(herein after referred to as} 'petitioners').

¶223

They have^{filed this Writ Petition challenging the actionof} respondents in^{not finalizing the modalities tbr distribution of} personnel of^{the Board of Intermediate Educationof the composite} State of Andhra^{Pradeshbetweenthe successor entitiesi'e' 3'd} respondent^{and 4'h respondentof the State of AndhraPradeshand} Telangana^{resPectivelY.}

¶224

Admittedly,^{the composite State of AndhraPradeshwas} bifurcated^{into new state of Telangana and the residuarystate of}

¶225

Andhra Pradesh on 02-06-2014 under the A.p. Reorganization Act, 2014 (for short^'thc Act') w.e.t 02-06-2014.

¶226

The Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh was included in schedure X appended to the said Act as it was a State wide lnstitution.

¶227

5 Ttre State of Telangana issued G.O.Ms.No.25 Higher Education (IE) Department dt.04-12-2014 and. constituted the Board of Intermediate Education for the State of Telangana (4,h respondent).

¶228

Thereafter the erstwhile Board of Intermediate Education became the Board of Intermediate Education for the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh (3'd respontlent).

¶229

Petitioners contend that they are all born and educated in Hyderabad and they belong to the State of Telangana, but the 4th respondent issued proceedings on 24-12-2014 drafting only certain employees in the list enclosed along with the said order to the 3.d respondent, pending fi,alization of modalities and that the petitioners continue to rvork with the Board of Intermediate Eclucation in the State of Andhra^pradesh.

¶230

Petitioners^{contendthat they were promoted to the cadre of} Superintendents^{prior to02-06-2014, that the 4th respondent} regularized the^{services of certain employeesin the cadreof} Superintendents^{by issuing proceedings dt'15-12-2015and included} several^{juniors to the petitionersand excluded the names of} petrttoners.

¶231

They contend^{that 4th respondent issued a Memorandumon} 0l-06-2016 communicating^{the provisional seniority list of} Superintendents^{inviting objectionsfor their seniority'But in the said} seniority^{list, the 4'h respondentdid not show all individuals but only} certain Superintendents^{who have completed 3 years of seruice'They} objected to^{the provisional seniority list contending that the said} seniority^{list should contain all individualswho are workingas} Superintendents^{irrespectiveof their length ofservice'}

¶232

Petitioners^{also contendthat in the meantime' 3'd respondent is} discriminating^{against the petitioners on the groundthat they beiongto} the State^{of Telangana,but working in the Stateof AndhraPradesh'}

¶233

Petitioners,^{therefore,pray that a direction be givento} respondent^{Nos.3 and 4 to finalize modalitiesfbr finalallocation of} staff between^{3'd respondent and 4']' respondentby placing relianceon}

¶234

Section 82 of the Act. They also contended that they gave representations on 30-t2-2014, l4-l}-2015, 0g-12_2015 and ll_12_ 2015 to the 4tr' respondent to consider their case for allotment to 4,h respondent by virtue of their local status, but 4,h respondent had not acted upon it and they were forced to file this Writ petition.

¶235

Leamed counsel Ibr petitioners reiterated the said contentions.

¶236

He also relied on a decision of this Court in B.Sambasiva Rao vs. State ofTelangana and othersr wherein this Court had dealt with final allocation of employees of A.p. state Residential Educational Institutions Society between its successors Telangana State Residential Educational Institutions Society (TREIS) and newly constituted A.^p. State Residential Educational Institutions Society (APRETS).

¶237

Respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed counter_affidavit admitting that the Board of Intermediate Education of the composite State of Andhra Pradesh is mentioned in Schedule _X of the Act, but contended that the Governnrent has not issued any modalities or guidelines in Schedule X Insrirutions. lt is adrnitted that the Secretary of 4'h respondent Boartl had drafied cerlain stalf working at lleacl Office of ':02t1ty,tl.p^r,,311 1 15, 11r,,,,

¶238

undivided^{Board of Intermediate Education on 24-12-20\4pending} finalization of^{modalities for the bifurcation of statr under Section82} of the Act. It^{is contended that petitioners are working under the} control of the^{3'd respondent and theyare not on the roles of the4th} respondent, and^{the provisionalseniority inthe cadre of} Superintendents^{is communicatedto the eligibleSuperintendentswho} have completed³ years of service as on 3l-0g-2015. It^{is stated that the requestof employees.presently} working with^{the 3'd respondent to take them in the 4th respondent on} the ground^{that they have studiedin Hyderabadand in Telangana} Districts before^{fillingthe proposedvacanciesby promotion from} feeder category,^{cannot be consideredby 4th respondent without final} allocation of^{staff between the twoStates'}

¶239

However,^{Sri RadhiveReddy, learned SpecialGovemment} Pleader attached^{to the Officeof the learnedAdvocate General has} fairly admitted^{that the issue in this case is covered by the judgment in} B.Sambasiva^{Rao(1 suPra)'}

¶240

The 3'd^{respondent also filed a counter-affidavitstatingthat the} allocation of^{employeeswas not made either as per purviewof the} presidential order or the Karralanathan Committee^{guidelineswhile}

¶241

taking the employees for 4'h respondent, and that certain employees who actually bclong to Telangana State as per presidential Order such as the petitioners, are continuing to work with the 3d respondent. It is also stated that several employees who actually belong to the Andhra Pradesh State as per the Presidential Oder are working in the 4,h respondent and names of certain ernployees have been given. It is again admitted that the division of posts in each category of the erstwhile Board of Intermediate Education of composite State of Andhra Pradesh was not done officially by the Secretaries of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and that the modalities for bifurcation oI'staff under Secrion 82 of the Act have not been finalized between respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is stated that only some of the employees were provitlcd to work in the 4th respondent and rest are working in the 3'd respondenl.

¶242

'fhe ronsirlerIl ion bv th e Court

¶243

From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Board of Intermediate Eclucation of the composite state of Andhra pradesh is mentioned in Schedule X to the Act at Sl.No.90.

¶244

In B.Sambasiva Rao ( I supra), this Court had considered the issuc of allo,:ati.rr or'cr-rplovees ol'erstwhile A.p. State Rcsiclcntial

¶245

Educational^{Institutions Societybetween Telangana Residential} Educational^{Institutions Society(TREIS) and new AP Residential} Educational^{Institutions Society (APREIS) constitutedafter02-06-} 2014. This^{Court had held that the organizationslike APREIS} covered by^{Schedule-X to the Act, wouldbe coveredby Section82 of} the Act;^{that the said provision specifically deals with employeesof} Public Sector^{Undertakings and it stipulatesthat on and from the} appointed^{date i.e., 02.06.2014,the employees of State Public Sector} Undertakings,^{Corporationsand other AutonomousBodies shall} continue to^{function insuch Undertakings' Corporationsor} Autonomous^{Bodies for a periodof one year, and during this period,} the Corporate^{Bodyconcernedshall deteminethe modalities for} distributing^{the personnelbetween the twosuccessorStates' It was} also held^{that Section 82 of the Act brings within its ambitthe} employees^{of autonomous bodies like the APREIS;and the successor} States^{Telanganaand AndhraPradeshare not required to dissolve} these autonomous^{bodies; and the word 'betweentwo successor} States, used^{in Section82 of the Act can onlyrefer to the autonomous} bodies of^{two successor States'}

¶246

]talsoheldlhatthemodalitieslbrdistributingthepersonnel between^{the two successor States can onlymeanthe modalities fbr}

¶247

distributing the personnel between the two successor State public Sector Lhdertakings, Corporations and Autonomous Bodies only and not distribution of such personnel between the respective State Govemments, as that would make employees of such Corporations / Undertakings / Companies etc., employees of the Govemments of the two successor States

¶248

It also held that Section g2 of the Act requires the Corporate Bodies themselves to determine the modalities for distributing its personnel between the two successor States; and that each of the corporate Bodies independentry and on its own accord shourd prescribe modalities for distribution of its employees between the two successor States.

¶249

It also crarified that rimitation ofone year prescribed in Section 82 for determining the modalities of distribution of personnel is not rnandatory, that such prescription of time is only directory, and the rnere fact that the one year period has elapsed, does not prohibit any of the Pubtic Sector Undertakings from determining modalities lbr, or for the actual allocation ol' its employees between the two successor States t hcrealicr'.

¶250

It also declared that^{failure to complete the exerciseol}

¶251

apportionrnent^{of the assetsand liabilities of the IX and X Schedule} entities, would^{have no bearing on the distributionof employeesof} Public Sector^{Undertakings/Corporations/AutonomousBodies} between the entities^{controlled exclusivelyby each of the successor} States. This Court^{relied upon the decisions in G'Rama Mohan Rao} and another^{Vs. Government of AndhraPradeshand another2'} P.B.Karunakar^{and others Vs. State of Telanganaand others3 and} Rani Vs. Principal^{Secretary, Higher Education Departmentand} othersa.

¶252

In our considered^{opinion,the Board of Intermediate Education} of the combined^{Stateof AndhraPradesh standson the same footing} asA.P.StateResidentialEducationallnstitutionsSocietyofthe combined State^{of AndhraPradesh, and the principle laid down} therein applies^{to tlie Board of IntermediateEducation of the} combined State^{of Andhra Pradesh as well'}

¶253

We therefbre^{direct that respondentNos'3shall preparethe final} seniority^lists of^{employeesin all categoriesas on 2'6'2014;and} respondent Nos.3^{and 4 shall discuss with each other and agree on}

¶254

']^{20r7(6) Al.D l03 (l)B)} '^{20 l8(3) Al,D,170 (l)B)} '^{20l7(4) Al.l I7l}

¶255

the modalities/guidelines for allocation of employees on basis of the said senrority list, and finalize the modalities for allocation of employees of the Board of Intermediate Education of the combined State of Andhra Pradesh between the respondent Nos.3 and 4 within two (02) months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order; and the allocation of the employees shall be done as per the said norms within one month of finalization of such modalities/guiclelines. All other griervances of the petitioners are left open to be considered in separate ;rroceedings to be initiated after the final allocation of the employees.

¶256

Thr; Wrir Petition is allowed with the above directions. No costs

¶257

Consequcntly, rniscellaneous petitions, pending il. any. shall stand closed.

¶258

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, J

¶259

Datc: .03.2021 Vsv

¶260

.T.VINOD KUMAR, J

I.Narasimha Murthy Hyd v. Secy Min of Law J and Home Affairs New Delhi and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.Narasimha Murthy Hyd v. Secy Min of Law J and Home Affairs New Delhi and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Shankar and 2 others Vs Sri. D. Prabhakar Rao and another

Ainala Nandini Vs Sri. D. Prabhakar Rao and another

Valadasu Praveen Kumar, Vs Sri. D. Prabhakar Rao and another

Letter submitted by the Member Secretary Vs The State of Telangana

Mohammed Shabbir Hussain alias Jaber Patel Vs The State of Telangana

Kondapally Sridhar Reddy Vs Ramesh Reddy Meda