Dismissed

The Engineer-in-Chief, v. J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna

Telangana HC5 Oct 2023WP/31687/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order allowing respondents to reckon their probation commencement date. The Court found the Tribunal justified in following the JVS Purnanand Raju precedent and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

dismissed the writ petition without costs and closed miscellaneous applications pending in the Writ Petition.

The Engineer-in-Chief, Vs J. Haribabu S/O J… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³¹⁸ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERBAD

¶4

(Special Original J u risd iction )

¶5

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR^RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 31687 OF 2016

¶10

Between

¶11

The Engineer-in-Chief, Panchayat^{Ral Engineering Department,SRTGN.} Bhavan, Erramanzil, Hyderabad.

¶12

The State of Telangana, rep. by^{its, PrincipalSecretary to Government,} Panchayat Raj Department, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Principal Secretary, GAD Services,^{Department, Governmentof} Telangana, T.S. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission,^{Rep.,by its Secretary,} Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

.....PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS lN o.A.NO.5831 0F 2013

¶16

AND

¶17

J. Haribabu, S/o J.Ramakrishna, Occ ; Superintending^{Engineerlncharge'} Rural Water Supply and Sanitation, Opp. Fire Station,^{Kashmirgadda,} Karimnagar, Rl/o Flat No.101 , Srinivasa Heights, Jawaharnagar^Moulali, Secunderabad.

¶18

D. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Seshagiri Rao, Occ Executive^{Engineer Rural Water-} Supflyand Sanitation, Medak, Rl/O Plot No.18,^Flat No.201,^{BSP Colony, Moti} Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶19

P.Y. Ramachandram,^{S/o. Yellaiah,} Occ^{ExecutiveEngineer Panchayat Raj} lnstitution Division, Kothagudem, Khammam District,^{Rl/o 1-161402,Raviteja} Harika Residency, Prabhat Nagar Colony, Chaitanyapuri,^Dislukhnagar Hyderabad.

¶20

P. Mruthyunjayam, S/o. Shetty Shiva^Rao, Occ Executive^{Engineer,PIU (PR)} Division, Karimnagar,^{R/O 403,} Ravi Kiran Apartments,^{H.No.3-6-492,} St.No.7, Himayatnagar,^Hyderabad.

¶21

.....RESPONOENTS/APPLICANTS lN O.A.No.5831/2013

¶22

The Hon'ble Andhra^{Pradesh Adminislrative Trrbunal, rep.,by its Registrar} Purana Haveli, Hyderabad.^{(formalparty)}

¶23

6 The Government of A.P, Rep by its PH. Secretary, Panchayathi Raj Department, A.P. Secretarrat, Hyderabad.

¶24

7 The Prl. Secretarv GAD (Services Dept) Govt of A.P . A.P. Secretariat. Hyde ra bad

¶25

(R 6 & R 7 irre not necessary parties in this petition)

¶26

..RESPONDENTS

¶27

Petition Unde r Artrcle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Wrrt order or direction more particularly one in the nature of 'Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to and connected with orders passed in OA.No.5831,'20.1 3 dated 22-O8-2O14 on the file of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Trrbunal, Hyderabad and quash or set aside the same by holding it as erronoous and contrary to law.

¶28

l.A.NO:1 OF 2016(WPMP. NO: 391 88 0F 2016)

¶29

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in O.A. No.583.1/2O13, dl. 22-08-2014 on the file of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above writ petitio n.

¶30

Counsel for the Petitioners : GP FOR SERVICES - I

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : M/s K.V.RAJASREE

¶32

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : NONE APPEARED

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.6 & 7 : NOT NECESSARY PARTIES

¶34

The Court made the following ORDER

¶35

HON'ELE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND

¶36

IION'BLE SRI JUS'TICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶37

WRIT PETITION No.31687 OF 2016

¶38

ORDE!: l!)i,r ITon l t Srr Jrrsrlce Abhirund Kuntar Shavili)

¶39

This Writ Pctition is filed aggrieved |r)' thc ordcr d1.22.O8.20l4 pilssed by' the A.P. Adrninistrarive Tribunal, Il'. rli'r:rbad, llor short "thc Tribtrnal") in O.A. No-5831 of 120 I3

¶40

). lJcard learnccl Government Pleader for Ser-viccs-ll altpearing hrl the pctitioncl's and thc learned counsel appcaring for the rcslron d en ts.

¶41

tt has becr', contended by the pctitioners that the r-cspondc.nts r.r,erc appointcd as Assistant Flxecutivc Enginr:ers i:r pr.r'suancc of A.l)- l)ublic Service Commission Notification during variours datcs tiom 1985 to 1.986 and as per the Rules, the rcsp()r1dcr)ts havc to pass thc Accounts Test for Subordina.te ()llir'(iI s irt.trl ;tccordirrgly, the1, have appr:arcd for ttre Accounl.s 'l-cst ()n 04.O1.199 I and anothc: Departmental Tcst was conclr..rctc-cl on 28.06.1991.^'though the reslrlts of the said test

¶42

\ K^..1 &^I<l(.'l \ I' ir^{Lr..l r68l,rl l() l6}

¶43

-i

¶44

\'ere sent^{for publicatlouill thc ' PGazcttcol1 05 ()8 1993 ' the} same^('ere I)Llblishcd^{orr 2'r ' 1 1 I 993 'but rirc t-csp')ndents$'ere} complaining^{lhartl-rc datr:oI colrmencementof prol)iltion \:as on} i0.O9.1989^{as the results \'ere to be declared bv tlle A P Public} Service^{Commissiorl on thc sai(l rlateBut' thc rcsl>r>ndenls\rere} contending^{that tllc persons;u'ho have z1ppc^reclfor I)epartmental} Test^{on 28 06 199 Irvert-'placc<i over alrd abovelhc respondents'} 'lhey u'erc conterlcling^{th:rt thcr sl-roulcl bc erlso tl eated on par} with those^{persollsancl their colnlrlenccment oi pr<>bationhasto} be declarcd^{from 31 '01 I9B9 and clcclarationo1' probationas} Whcn^{thc reqtrcst ofthe rcspondentswasnot} 31.01.199^{1 .} considered^{ancl tlle sarnc .,vas rcjectedvide Mcmo dt 18'07 2013'} the^{respondents have approached the Tribunal by hling O A'} No.5831^{of 20i3 and thc Tribunal vide ordcrdt 22'O8'2014'was} pleased^{toset aside therejectionorders ancl directed the} petitioners^{to rcckol'r the iast Thursday of January 199 1 i e'} 31.01.i99^{1 as the date on tvhich they have passed the Accounts} Test^{and declaretheir probation accordingly u'ithout appreciating} any^{of the contcntiol.rsraiseclb)' the petitionersThe petitioners'} therefore.^{contcnd. that appropriate orders be passed in the writ}

¶45

¶46

AKS.J & IT I{N.J WP No.3 1687 ol'10 I 6

¶47

1 \

¶48

I I

¶49

Petrtion D,\ sctting the orders passed by the Tribunai in O.A. No.583 1 ol 20 13, di 22.O8.2O L4 and allorv the Writ Perition

¶50

On thc otl-rcr i'rand, learned counsel for the responcients had contencled that tlrc Tribunal u.as justified in allowing the O.A. in favor-rr of the respondents by foilorving the law lard down bv this Court in JVSP Purnanandq Ro-o and others Vs. Commissioner and Director oJ School Education, Hgderabad and othersl and accorr.lingl,v directed rhe petitioners to reckon the last Thursclal of .january 199 1 i.e. 31.01.1991 as the dare on wirich thcr have passed rhe Accounts Test and declare lheir probation. Thcrefore. thcrL- are no mcrits in the Writ Petition and the same is liable to be disrnissed.

¶51

I-Iavrnq corrsidered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in allowing the O.A b_v follou.ing the lau, laid down by this Court in JVSP Purnanand"q. .f,lao (supra). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to in lerfere \.ith the orders passed by the Tribunal.

¶52

, . ( \l lt -. t)ti,

¶53

.,1

¶54

.\KS.I & R tTN I \ l'} No.l l6117 ot- 20 i6

¶55

6 Accordingl',', thc writ pctirio, is clisnrissed. No orcler as to

¶56

costs

¶57

As a sequel, miscellaneous applicarions pcnclir-rg. i[ an_t , in

¶58

this Writ Petition, shall stancl closcci

¶59

¶60

SD/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR ASSIST4NT REGISTRAR ,TRUE copy// alft SECTION OFFICER

¶61

1 Two CC's to G.P For Services_|, Hiqh Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

¶62

2 9nu 99^{to IVI/s K.V.Rajasree Advo^are} [OpUC]

¶63

3 Iwo CD Copies SA GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0511012023

ORDER

WP.No.31687 of 2016

STATE
1
tr 1$8 o
t NU<br>o l
o
I orsPN

¶69

DISMISSING THE W.P

¶70

WITHOUT COSTS.

¶71

t{<br>\o

The Engineer-in-Chief, v. J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Engineer-in-Chief, v. J. Haribabu S/O J. Ramakrishna

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

J.Posetty Vs The. State of Telangana

Government of Telangana Vs K. Ilaiah

R. Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The District Prohibition and Excise officer

Narra Ram Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Utkur Sumathamma Vs The State of Telangana

The Union of India Vs M.A. Jabbar