Allowed

P.Santosh Kumar v. The Government of India

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024WP/3887/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Section Officer challenged his allocation to Andhra Pradesh, seeking transfer to Telangana. Declaring the allocation illegal for ignoring spouse preferences under 2014 Revised Guidelines, the Court directed his allocation to Telangana.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be allocated to the State of Telangana in the available department, considering spouse factor.

P.Santosh Kumar Vs The Government of India — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[3411 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Ju risd iction)

¶4

THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 3887 OF 2019

¶8

Between:

¶9

P.Santosh Kumar, S/o. Late S. Prabhu Aged about 51 Years, Section Officer, AP Administrative Tribunal. Purani l-Javeli, Hyderabad

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

I The Government of lndia, Rep.by its Under Secretary Department of Personnel and Training Mrnistry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions Dept., Lokanayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi.

¶13

2 The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Chief Secretary, General Administration Dept., Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District

¶14

3 The State of Telangana. Rep.by its Chief Secretary General Administration Dept., Secretariat. Hyde rabad-50 0022

¶15

4 The Advisory Committee Constituted under the, Provrsrons of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Acl2014 Rep.by its Member Secretary, General Admrnistration (SRD) State of AP . Secretariat, H yderabad-50002 2

¶16

^ The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, SRD General Administration(SR-l) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶17

6 The State of Telangana, Rep by rts Secretary, SRD General ,Ad m inistration(S R) Dept., Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶18

7 The Registrar, AP Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli Hyderabad

¶19

..RESPONDENTS

¶20

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 4ction on part of the Bespo.ndents in allocating the Petitioner to the State ef Andhra Pradesh vide orders No. (1)/2017 dated 4.10.2017 of the 1St Respondent as communicated vide G.O.Ms.No.^'133 General Ad ministration(SR-l) Department daled 4.10.2017 of the 5th Respondent by not extending the spouse

¶21

factor as provided under crause 1B(k) and (r) of the guiderines dated 29.i0.2014 of the Government of India basing on the recommendations of the Advisory committee as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Ap n"oigrnirrlion Acl 2014 and set aside the same,with a consequential direction to fl.',e ,."Jponoerts to allocate the Petitioner to the state of relangana as per his option and taking into consideration the spouse factor and other rdlevant factor.s

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶23

.. ."P."titj.el^{under Seption iSl.CpCprhying that in the circumstances} stated in lf^gigTil^fll:-9 ln ,rrqqgl^g!t!"^{petition, tne uisrr court may b" pr*.LJt"} suspend the order No. (1)/2017 dated 4.10.2017 of thq^.1st Respondent in so far as rne perrtroner rs concerned with a direction to the Respondents to allocate the Petitroner to the State of Telangana as per his option

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. NAYAKAWADI RAMESH

¶25

9gll-"9] Iqr^{the Respondent No.1: SRt cADt} PRAVEEN KUMAR Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶26

Counsel for the respondent Nos.2,4&5: Gp FOR SERVICES A.p

¶27

Counsei for the respondent Nos.3&6: Gp FOR SERVTCES lll

¶28

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶31

AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶33

II/RIT PETITION No.3887 of 2OL9

¶34

ORDER: @er Hon'bte Si Jttstice Namauarapu Rajeshuar Rao)

¶35

This Writ Petition is liled seeking the follou,ing relief

¶36

''. . . . to lssue a uit.. order or directior-t more 'ir the n.ature of Wnt of Mandanuts decloittg t.lte octiort orr parl of the respondents in allocating the petitioner to the State of Andhra Pradesh uide orders No.(l)/217, dated 04.10.2017 of the J.r respondent as communicated uide G.O.Ms.No.133 General Administration (SRJ) Department dated 04.10.2017 of the Sth respondent by not extending the spouse factor as prouided under Clause 18(k)&(L) of the guidelines dated 29.10.2014 of the Gouemment of India basing on the recommendations of tLe Aduisory committee as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the prouisions of AP Reorgani.z,ation Act, 2014 and set aside the same with a consequential direction to the respondents to allocate the petitioner to the State of Telangana as per his option and taking into consideration the spouse factor^{and otherreleuant} factors^{and passsuch other} order or orders.. .."

¶37

Heard Sri Nal,akart adi Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learnecl Deput,r'

¶38

¶39

Solicitor General of India for respondent No.l, learned (lovernment Pleader for Services A.P. for respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5. and the learned Government Pleader for ServicesIII lor respondent Nos.3 and 6.

¶40

Lcarned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as a Section Officer in the Office of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. Initially, the petitioner was appointed asa Junior Assistant on 22.07.1999 in the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and subsequently promoted to a Senior Assistalt on 03.03.2011 and further promoted to a Section Officer on 04.11.20 13. His unit of appointment was in the A.P.Administrative Tribunal in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner \t-as a loca-l candidate of the State of Telangana as he had pursued his studres in the State of Telangana and sa tisfied the delinition ol the loca1 candidate as dellned in the Presidential Orders.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

¶42

that the State of Andhra Pradesh was re-organized through

¶43

¶44

the A.P. Reorganization Act, 2014 and the existing State of Andhra Pradesh is re-organized as the State ol Andhra Pradesh and the State of Telangana. Consequent to the reorganization of the existing State of Andhra pradesh, the Government of India constituted an advisory committee for the State Government Employees to delineate objective and transparent criteria for the allocation of personnel belonging to the State Government in the existing cadre of different services of Andhra pradesh between the two successor States i.e., Andhra pradesh and Telangana determining the cadre strength to recommend special individual allocation of the State Government Employees and to consider any representation made by the State Government Employees to ensure fair and e quitable treatmen t.

¶45

Learned counsel lor the petitioner lurther submits that the Government of India issued guiderines for the linal aliocation of State Cadre employees under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2014. pursuant to the Government of India guidelines, the General Administration

¶46

(SR) The Department, representing the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Government of Telangana issued Circular Memo No.FSA/O 1/2014, dated 30.O9.2014, concerning the moda-lities for allocating the State Service Employees.

¶47

Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that according to the guidelines, the petitioner has opted lor the State of Telangana and his case was required to be considere d in terms of his local status and on the spouse,s grouncls for allocation to the State of Telangana. After issuing the guideiines, the respondents have communicated a tentative allocation tist with respect to the ApAT uide Notification No.19326-,{ ISR/2016, dated 06.09 .2Ot7. The petitioner was shown as a_llocatecl to the State of Andhra Pradesh despite the petitioner being a local candidate to the State of Telangana as defined under the presidentia_l Orders.

¶48

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner,s wife is working in South Centrai Railwavs, Hyderabad, as such, the petitioner,s case

¶49

¶50

was required to be considered on the spouse grounds as provided under para 18(k) and (l) of the guidetines communicated by the Government of India through F.No.27l13/2013-SRS, dated 29.tO.2Ot4. para 18(i) of the guidelines provides that the employees who are members of the Scheduled Caste or Sched.uled Tribes shall be considered for allocation based on their option if they are local candidates. The petitioner,s case was required to be considered in terms of the three factors, i.e. spouse ground, local status and SC categorv. Ho,uvever, the responderrts have ignored the petitioner,s ciaim for allocation to the State of Telangana, and the samc is contrary to the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Re_organization Act.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have adopted a discriminatory attitude ty not appl)ang the spouse factor and contending that the said protection is applicable with respect to the personnel working in A1l India Service and the State Service. After the final allocation, the petitioner has been

¶52

)

¶53

¶54

requesting for allocation to the State of Teiangana on a deputation basis, but the same was not considered.

¶55

Therelore, learned counsel appearing lor the petitioner submits that appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by directing the respondents to allocate the petitioner to the State of Telangana.

¶56

Respondent Nos.L and 3 hled a counter affidavit stating that the tentative allocation of employees of APAT was notified on 06.O9.2017 for submission of representation, if any, against the said allocation by the aggrieved employees u,ithin tvvo weeks from the date of publication of the Notification. In the tentative allocation, the petitioner was ailotted to AP against his option, and he made representation for allotment to Telangana on the ground that he is local to Telangana, belonging to the SC category and his spouse is a Central Government employee under Para 18 (k) of the Guidelines. The petitioner did not furnish his preferential claim in the prescribed format Cir.Memo. No. 1918a/SRII Al l2}t4-5, dated I2.O2.2OLS. With regard to his preferential claim under SC Category, it

1.t.\

is submitted that as^per Cir.Memo.No.19184/SRll^All 2OI4-7, dated 25.02.2015, Para^{3A, Godali and Godagula} were notified as SC in the Andhra Pradesh^{only whileBeda} (Budga) Jangam were notified only in the^{Telangana State.} Hence, the allocation of the employees^{will be made to the} respective States, r,l'here theY are notified^{if the.v havc optcd} for either of the States. However,^{the petitionerdrd not} submit proof that he belongs to^{Beda (Budga) Jargam;} therefore, he did not consider his^{preferential claim under} the SC category. The^{petitioner'srepresentationfor} preferential allocation to Telangana^{was rejected as eleven} (11) employees who were senior to^{him opted to TS and} they were allotted to^{TS, and there are no posts in} Telangana to accommodate^{the petitioner in the State of} Telangana. Therefore,^{the petitionerivas final1y allottedto} Andhra Pradesh.

¶61

1 1. It is further stated^{that with regard to the claim lor} prioritized allocation on^{spouse employee ground, itis} submitted that^{para 18(i) of the Guidelines on allocation} prescribed that the spouses^{in State cadre in Government}

¶62

¶63

or in State Government^{Institutions,local bodies and those} who are deemed allocated^{as per the A.P'Reorganisation} Act, shall as far as^{practicable be local candidature'} Spouses who are 1ocal^{candidates of a State shall be} allocated to that State.^{Spouseswho belong to different} States may be allocated^{a-fter consideringtheir options'} Ttie petitioner's claim is not^{coveredunder the above} Guiclelines, as the^{petitioner's wife works at South Centra]} Railways.

¶64

It is further submitted that^{the petitioner has} submitted representation against^{his tentative a-llocationto} Andhra Pradesh. His representation^{was considered and} rejected as eleven (11) ofhis^{seniors, who are local Optees} to Telangana, were allotted to^{Telangana, and there are no} posts to accommodate him in Telangana.^{The seniority} rank of the petitioner is 24,^whereas the^{cases of his} seniors viz; Sri G. Goutham, Seniority Rank^{No.5, who} ciaimed preferential allocation to Telangana^{on Spouse} employee grounds and Smt. D. Padmavathi,^{Seniority Rank} No.16, who claimed preferential^{allocation to Telangana on}

¶65

.
\
-L
I

¶66

widowed ernployee grounds were considered arld the.y were allotted to the Telangana.

¶67

It is further submitted that the allocation process adopted in Uttar pradesh, Madhya pradesh and Bihar, as referred by the petitioner, is not relevant in the present case. The distribution of employees in other states was based on a several of districts, whereas in respect of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, it is done on population ratio as per A.P.Reorganization Act, 2or4 a,d basecl o, local status as per presidential Order on public Employment. The principles adoptecl in the other States cannot be transposed as principles for Andhra pradesh ar_rd Telangana.

¶68

It is further stated that with regard to complying with the interim order dated 14.06.2019 of this Court, the guidelines issued for Inter-State deputation envisage that the employee seeking inter-state deputation has to apply to the Head of the Department/Institution concerned through proper channei in the prescribed proforma duly signed by the Head of Office/Department or Institution to the Special

¶69

¶70

Chiel Secretar_v/ Principai Secretary/ Secretary to Government of the Department concerned, after the verification. On receipt of the application from the employee, the Special Chief Secretary/principal Secretary/SecretarJr to tJre Government of the Department shall address communication in writing to the Special Chief Secretar5r/Principal Secretary/Secreta_ry to Government of the Department concerned in the other State for which the employee is seeking such deputation. The petitioner is presentlv under the control of the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal. Therefore, the petitioner has to submit his application to the HOD of ApAT, u,hich will be scnt to thc Administrative department concerned and forwarded to the State of Telangana for his Inter_State deputation to Telangana. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶71

Respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 filed a cor.rnter affidavit stating that the cadre strength and its proposed distribution between the States was published on

¶72

L1,

¶73

¶74

06.06.2017 through the website, grving ten days to submit representations, if any. The last date for receipt of representations was 16.06.20lZ. In the cadre of Court Officers, the cadre strength is 26, out of which i5 posts were allotted to Andhra pradesh, and I 1 posts u,ere allotted to Telangana. The petitioner did not submit any representation against the proposed distribution of cadre strength of SO/Court Officer/Scrutiny Officer between the States ofAndhra pradesh and Telangana.

¶75

It is further stated that the Deputy Registrar furnished the seniority list existing as of 0l.06.2014. Based on the seniority list, options were called for from the employees through Notilication No.19326_4 /SR/2016, dated 13.07.2017, giving two weeks to exercise the options. The last date for exercising the option was 27 .O7 .20 17. The petitioner, who is working as a Section Officer, exercised his option, saying that he belongs to the local cadre of Telangana State and opted for Telangana ancl requcsted to allot Telangana. The petitioner stands at Sl.No.24 in the seniority list. Out of 25 employees in the cadre, 1 1 of his

¶76

seniors, who were local to Telangana, have opted for Telangana and allotted to Telangana against the 11 posts allotted to Telangana. There are no posts in Telangana for his allocation: hence, the petitioner was allottt:d to Andhra Pradesh as per the provisions of 18(f) guidelines. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶77

Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the guidelines relating to the allocation of State Services Employees under the AP-Reotgarizatton Act,2014. Guideline No.18 (k) and (L) reads as follows:-

¶78

k) Spouse of an alt India Seruice (AIS) Olficer uho belongs to a State cadre or is an emplogee of a State Gouernment institution shall be allocoted, tahere so desired bA the spouse, to the State to which the AIS offtcer is allocated.

¶79

I Sporrses in State Cadre in GouernmerLt or in State Gouemment instihttion, local bodies and those tuho are deerted allocclted as per the Act, shall as far as practiccLble, be aLlotted to the sctnte State. after consideing options rncLcle by ttrcrn cLnd their local candidature. €pouses u,ho ctre locctl carLdidates of a State shall be allocoted to tllat State. ,Spouses u.tho belong to different States mag be allocated ofter consideing their options. "

¶80

<br>

¶81

¶82

As per the above guidelines, as per thc petitioner,s contention, he is eligible for allocation to the State of Telalgana under the spouse,s grounds.

¶83

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner reiied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.(TR)Nos.23775 of 2Ot6, dated 2T.O2.2OtT and

¶84

W. P. (TR).No. 5680 of 20 1 T, d,ated. 29.O I.2O 19.

¶85

The findings of this Court :_

¶86

As per the petitioner's contention, he opted for the state of Telangana, but the respondents have not considered his case and allotted him to the State of Andhra pradesh. The respondents stated that initially, the petitioner did not ma.ke anv application, but after the issuance of the Circular Memo, clated 06.10.2O17, the petitioner made al application under the spouse's grounds ald based on the technica_l aspects did not consider his case.

¶87

By virtue of the interim order dated 24.06.2019 passed by this Court in I.A.No.1 of 2Ot9 in W.p.No.3887 of 2OI9, the deputation was initially given to the petitioner for a period of three years from 01.06.2024 31.05.2024. As per Circular Memo, dated 06. lO.2017 , clause (h) states that .the deputation

¶88

¶89

shall be initiaily for a period of three years extendable by another two years'. Invoking this provision, as the deputation of the petitioner would come to an end on 31.05.2024, lhe petitioner has filed LA.No.2 of 2024 in W.P.No.3887 of 2Ol9 seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his representations dated 11.03.2024 and 28.02.2024 for extension of deputation for a further period of two years from OI.06.2024 to O1.06.2026. On 01.05.2024, this Court disposed of the said I.A. bv directing the respondents to take a decision on the reprcsentations dated 28.02.2021 and 1 1.03.2024 u.ithin fifteen dar,'s from the date of production of copy of the order. The petitloner is directed to resubmit both the aforesaid representations, aiong with copy of this order, before the respondents. The respondents were directed to communicate the outcome of such consideration to the petitioner. Though the Circular states that the initial deputation of three years can be extended by another two years, the respondents considered his representations and were not inclined to continue in the State of Telangana and relieved the petitioner from the State of Telangala.

¶90

¶91

' ,. ;;Jr',.:.,iir

¶92

While discussing the allocation of the employees on spouse grounds, this Court in W.P.(TR).No.5680 of 2017, dated 28.Ot.2019, held as fo11ou,s :-

¶93

" . ... Deliberating on the content of those sub-clauses and taking into consideration the order of the Diuision Bench of the Court in Dr.S. Shoba Roni V. The State Reorganization Department (W.P.No.23775 of 2016, dated 27.02.2017), we are of the uieu that th.e petitioner is eligible to stclnd allotted to the State of Telan.gana on spouse ground. ?-h.e concept being a spouse of an All lnd.i.a Seruice Offtcer, u'ho belongs to a State Cadre is utide enough to tak.e utitl-tirt its uieu..t those tuho are emploqed in institutions under the control of the Gouernment of lndia. The Indian National

¶94

Centre for Ocean Infonnation Seruices is under the control of the Ministry of Earth Sciences of Gouernment of India and there is no reoson to assume that it is not part of the group identifted as AII India Seruice Officer for the purpose of ttrc protectiue couenant in fauour of spouses in subclauses (k) and (l) of Clause 18 of the guidelines. We are, therefore of the uieta that this uLit petition is etigible to succeed."

¶95

In W.P.(TR).No.23775 OF 20i6, dated 27.02.20i7, this Court held as fo11ou.s :-

¶96

"The bctsic pinciple un.d.erlyin.g these guidelines i-s therefore to protect and keep together etn.ploged sponse-s tuho tuould othenui.se be separated outirtg to tlte allocatiort undertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. Keeping the spiit and intent

¶97

¶98

<br>

¶99

underlging this pinciple, the guidelines should be implemented. Merelg because Clause (1) does not speak of ernployees working in Central Gouerntnent Public Sector Undertakings, it does not mean that. spouses of such emplogees, t.ttlto ctre utorking it tlp State codre, ore not to be accorrunoclated uthere theA are utorking, Clause (1) Srare.s irr rLo uttcerlait terms that allocatic:n shcrll. a:; far as prctcticable, be made so as to kept the spouses together. The import and intent of bifurcation of the ersttDhile State of Andhro Pradesh is not to break up marriages. The authoities therefore haue to conceiue, formulate and implement the guidelines keeping this in mind AnA shortfall in the guidelines in this regard cannot be token literallg to mean that spouses, u-those cases do not fall utithin the four corners of the instntction s as set out tlrcrein, are to be lefi out in the cold and must suJfer moital separation. "

¶100

In the present case, the wife of the petitioner is working in South Central Railua-r's, Hvderabad and the petitioner is working ars a Section Oflicer rn the A- P.Administrative Tribunal. Initially, thc petitioner has not made an-' application lor allotment to the State of Telangana. but after issuance of the Circular Memo, dated 06.10.2017, the petitioner has made an application under three grounds i.e., spouse ground, 1ocal status and Scheduled Caste category. However, the respondents rejected the case of the petitioner for allocation to the State of Telangana. But, in view of the above observations of this Court, this Court is of the

¶101

\ \

¶102

¶103

considered view that it is just and proper to direct the respondents to allocate the petitioner for the State of Telangana under spouse grounds.

¶104

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to allocate the petitioner to the State of Telangana ir-r the available department, taking into consideration his spouse factor and pass appropriate orders in accordance uith larl.. No costs.

¶105

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

¶106

SD/-V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶107

//TRUE^COPY// SECTIOJbFFICER

¶108

To, 1 The Under^{Secretary Department oflPersonnelandTrainino Ministry of} Personnel.^{Public Grrevanc'j"i;j'P;;"i;;; deptLot<anav5kBhavan' Khan} Market^{New Delhi'}

¶109

)retariat^Velagapudr'

¶110

2 The Chief^{Secretary, General AdministrationDept"Sec} Guntur^District'

¶111

Secretarrat.^HYderabad-

¶112

1. The^{Chief Secretary. General AdministrationDept} 500022

¶113

4 The Advrsory^{CommrtteeConstitutedunderthe' Provrstons of} t aiv^{G e n er a the AndhraI A d m nstI ati o n} r [,uui:::'ite

¶114

ru^{af,t ,5i".ti#s::,L:'al}

¶115

I 5 The Principal^{Secretary, SRD Geneial Administration(SR-l)Dept Secretariat} HYderabad

¶116

6.TheSecretary,SRDGeneralAdministration(SR)Dept.,Secretariat. HYderabad

¶117

T The^{Registrar, AP AdministrativeTribunal' Purani Haveli Hyderabad}

¶118

I, One^{0C to SRI NAYAKAWADI RAMESH AdvocateIOPUC]}

¶119

One^{OO to Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar' Deputy Solicitor General of lndia [OPUC]}

¶120

Two 00s to GP^{for Servipes'A'F'High Qourt for the State of Telangana at} '- Hideiabad tourl : '1 1.Two CQs to GP for Services-lll'^{High Courtforthe} )ur. r.,r^{(rrs State of Telanganaat} I'lyderabad. toiJTi^-

12.Two 0D^CoPieP KKS

.,r.oir&BP

HIGH COURT

DATED:1411112024

oF TE( 4
ile
9
ORDER .$'
I
o $<br>WP.No.3887 of 20192019 u- <br>Y,
l
iH +

¶127