Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K.B.Jagan Mohan, Son Of K.Sunder ... vs The State Of A.P. Rep.By Its Secretary, ... on 19 February, 2013
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.P. NO.7764 OF 2006 DATED 19-02-2013 K.B.Jagan Mohan, son of K.Sunder Rao,A.P.State Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.,Eluru, WGDt and others....Petitioners The State of A.P. rep.by its Secretary, Agriculture and Co-operation Dept., Secretariat,Hydbad and another..Respondents Counsel for Petitioner:Sri K.R.Prabhakar and Sri T.P.Acharya Counsel for Respondents : Sri MaHERCHAND Nori; G.P.for Co-operation and G.P.for Agriculture. <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases Referred: 1)2006 (2) ALD 210 2)2007 (6) Supreme 97 = AIR 2007 SC 3100 1 2006 (2) ALD 210 2 2007 (6) Supreme 97 = AIR 2007 SC 3100 wp.7764,7765,19505,and 20387 of 2006 COMMON ORDER:
The Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited (for brevity, 'the Corporation') is a wholly owned Government Company. Presently, the Central Government holds 12.51% interest therein while the remaining 87.49% is held by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Hitherto, the Corporation had three business divisions: an Agro Chemicals Division, a Land Development Division and a Farm Mechanization Division. Pursuant to the advice of a Cabinet Sub-Committee, given in the context of the functioning of public sector undertakings, the Government of Andhra Pradesh directed closure of the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation under G.O.Ms.No.282, Agriculture and Cooperation (FP-I) Department, dated 08.07.1997. The Corporation thereupon came up with a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) under its Circular dated 11.07.1997. This Circular was subjected to challenge before this Court in W.P.Nos.26143 and 31959 of 1997 and by order dated 05.04.1999, this Court upheld the same. The validity of G.O.Ms.No.282 dated 08.07.1997 was also upheld. This Court held that the VRS introduced pursuant to the said G.O. was legal and valid and permitted one more opportunity to the employees to accept the same.
Out of the 55 Officers who were then working in the Agro Chemicals Division, 47 Officers opted for the VRS. The remaining eight however filed writ petitions challenging the move of the Corporation to force the VRS upon them. Out of these eight, six Scheduled Caste Officers figured as petitioners in W.P.No.30602 of 1997 and batch before this Court and by judgment dated 02.12.2005 passed therein, reported in B.KISHAN v. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND VICE- CHAIRMAN, A.P.STATE AGRO INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.1, a learned Judge of this Court issued several directions to the Corporation. It would be relevant to note that though G.O.Ms.No.282 dated 08.07.1997 proceeded on the assumption that the affected 55 Officers were exclusively recruited for the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation, in B.KISHAN1 this Court held to the contrary that the appointment of the six Officers, the petitioners in the batch, was to the Corporation and that they were thereafter posted in the Agro Chemicals Division. The contention of the Corporation that they were appointed exclusively to the Agro Chemicals Division was therefore rejected. This finding has attained finality as no appeal was filed against the judgment. It would therefore not be open to the Corporation to rake up this issue once again.
Perusal of the judgment in B.KISHAN1 reflects that the learned Judge accepted the contention of the Corporation that the G.Os. issued by the Government were not per se binding on the Corporation. The learned Judge observed that the Board of Directors of the Corporation would be its primary decision making body and unless a G.O. was specifically adopted by the Board, it would not apply to the Corporation. With reference to G.O.Ms.No.121, Social Welfare (L.I) Department, dated 31.10.1996, providing for creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate reservation category employees, the learned Judge held that the same had no applicability to the Corporation as it was not adopted by it. Upon a detailed analysis of the principle of 'operating the roster backwards' in the light of case law, the learned Judge found that the Corporation had not considered operating the roster backwards in the case of the six petitioners in the batch, all of whom were regularly appointed to posts reserved for the Scheduled Castes. The learned Judge accepted the argument of the six petitioners that upon closure of the Agro Chemicals Division, a situation had arisen where not even a single Scheduled Caste Officer was left in the Corporation. The 37 employees remaining in the Corporation who belonged to the Scheduled Castes were admittedly working in Class III and Class IV posts. In this context, the learned Judge observed thus:
"43. Without going so far as to issue a mandamus to the respondents to operate the roster backwards in favour of the Scheduled Castes, posted earlier in the closed agro chemicals division, I am of the view that the constitutional safeguards, for protecting the interests of the Scheduled Castes, would be effectuated if the respondent Corporation were directed to consider the feasibility of operating the roster backwards in favour of the petitioners, erstwhile employees of the Corporation whose services were terminated pursuant to the closure of the agro chemicals division, all of whom belong to the Scheduled Castes and have chosen not to take V.R.S. with the fond hope of continuing in the services of the respondent - Corporation. The respondents shall also examine as to whether, on such operation, the petitioners are eligible and qualified to be appointed in similar posts in other divisions of the Corporation, and if so, consider their cases for appointment."
The learned Judge held that it was not for this Court to determine the equivalence of educational qualifications and experience or equation of posts. The question whether there were posts in other Divisions which were equivalent to the posts held earlier by the six petitioners in the batch and whether they possessed the necessary qualifications and experience to be appointed to such posts, per the learned Judge, were matters not for this Court to evaluate but for the Corporation, on a detailed consideration of all aspects, to determine. The learned Judge also observed that the question as to whether the Corporation should recruit personnel for the newly set up Agro Rythu Seva Kendras (ARSKs) would be in the realm of executive policy and as creation and abolition of posts was for the Corporation itself to decide upon, no direction could be issued to it to create posts or to fill up such posts by appointing the petitioners therein. Having stated so, the learned Judge concluded that operating the roster backwards would however not require posts to be created and would only result in accommodating Scheduled Castes employees in the existing posts held by others. Consequent upon such accommodation, the learned Judge observed that the services of persons who had earlier held these posts, which are filled by the Scheduled Castes employees, would be liable to be terminated. The learned Judge observed that operation of the roster backwards would ensure that the existing staff would include employees belonging to the Scheduled Castes to the extent of the percentage of posts reserved in their favour. It was further pointed out that it would also ensure that an anomalous situation, such as the one presented in the case, would not arise where there would not be a single Officer belonging to the Scheduled Castes left in the entire organization. As regards the cases of P.Sudhakar Reddy, an employee of the A.P.Agricultural University with a degree in agricultural engineering, and C.S.Reddy, a retired employee of Krishak Bharati Co-operative Limited (KRIBHCO) with a M.Sc. degree in Agriculture, who were brought on deputation to the Corporation and were continued in service even after the restructuring effected under G.O.Ms.No.282 dated 08.07.1997, the learned Judge observed that the contention of the six petitioners that their services had been done away with on the ground that the Agro Chemicals Division was closed but at the same time, the Corporation had engaged services of OC candidates in posts which could have been filled up by continuing them therein, if true, was undoubtedly a cause for concern. The learned Judge opined that if any of the petitioners were eligible and qualified to hold the posts which had been filled up by appointing deputationists, it would be a mockery of the safeguards and protections conferred on the Scheduled Castes by the Constitution of India. The learned Judge summed up the relief granted, in para 63 of the judgment, as under:
"63. The Corporation shall consider operating the roster backwards, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, all of whom belong to the Scheduled Castes, and examine the feasibility of accommodating them in equivalent/similar posts in other divisions, including posts filled up subsequent to the closure of the agro chemicals division, with deputationists or otherwise, provided, of course, the Corporation is satisfied, for just and valid reasons, that they possess the requisite qualifications and the experience required to discharge the functions prescribed for the said posts. The Board of Directors, the top decision making- body of the Corporation, shall consider and take an appropriate decision in this regard, in accordance with the aforementioned observations, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The decision of the Board of Directors shall be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter."
The individual proceedings dated 13.04.2006, impugned in these four writ petitions, are purported to have been passed by the Corporation in compliance with the directions of this Court in B.KISHAN1. Thereby, the Corporation terminated the services of K.B.Jagan Mohan (the petitioner in W.P.No.7764 of 2006) and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar (the petitioner in W.P.No.7765 of 2006); and confirmed the earlier termination from service of P.Venkaiah (the petitioner in W.P.No.19505 of 2006) and B.Kishan (the petitioner in W.P.No.20387 of 2006). These four persons were amongst the six petitioners in the batch in B.KISHAN1.
The issue that falls for consideration in these cases is whether the said proceedings constitute adequate compliance with the directions in B.KISHAN1 in true letter and spirit.
K.B.Jaganmohan was appointed as a Senior Marketing Officer by order dated 07.08.1991. P.S.S.Ravi Kumar was appointed as a Senior Marketing Officer on 27.08.1991. They were both recruited to backlog Scheduled Caste vacancies after due selection. P.Venkaiah was appointed initially as an Assistant Marketing Officer under order dated 22.09.1980. He was promoted as a Senior Marketing Officer on 06.05.1987. B.Kishan was appointed as a Senior Marketing Officer by order dated 07.08.1991 in a backlog Scheduled Caste vacancy. K.B.Jagan Mohan holds a M.Sc. degree in Agriculture while P.S.S.Ravi Kumar, P.Venkaiah and B.Kishan hold degrees of B.Sc. (Agriculture).
K.B.Jagan Mohan and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar were continued in service owing to the status quo orders in their writ petitions, which formed part of the batch in B.KISHAN1. They were sent on deputation to the A.P.State Warehousing Corporation in 2004.
While so, under G.O.Ms.No.114, Agriculture & Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 20.05.2005, the Government of Andhra Pradesh accepted the request of the Corporation to permit it to set up retail outlets for routing products through unemployed qualified graduates/experienced entrepreneurs by making the products available to them for supply to the farmers on time, ensuring quality and price line.
Thereupon, by proceedings dated 26.05.2005, the Corporation addressed the A.P.State Warehousing Corporation stating that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had taken a decision to revive some of the closed activities of the Corporation as a part of which it had been ordered to set up ARSKs in 10 districts on pilot basis. In that context, the Corporation stated that the services of the named employees who were sent on deputation to the A.P.State Warehousing Corporation were required to monitor the ARSKs and requested the A.P.State Warehousing Corporation to repatriate them. K.B.Jagan Mohan and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar both find mention in these proceedings. K.B.Jagan Mohan, upon being recalled, was placed as In-Charge of all the ARSKs of the Corporation in East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna Districts under Circular dated 27.08.2005. P.S.S.Ravi Kumar was also repatriated to the Corporation and by order dated 19.08.2005, he was entrusted with the marketing of fertilizers and pesticides through ARSKs for the entire Rayalaseema and Telangana Regions. Their services were thereafter terminated under the impugned proceedings dated 13.04.2006. In so far as P.Venkaiah and B.Kishan are concerned, they were removed in the year 1997 and the proceedings dated 13.04.2006 merely confirmed their termination from service.
By interim orders dated 04.10.2007 passed separately in W.P.Nos.7764 and 7765 of 2006, this Court directed the Corporation to consider the cases of K.B.Jagan Mohan and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar for being engaged as Senior Marketing Officers or Regional Managers or in any other equivalent posts which were vacant in the Corporation within a timeframe. The Corporation thereupon issued orders dated 08.11.2007 stating that, as the Agro Chemicals Division had been closed, there was no possibility to continue the petitioners in the posts of Senior Marketing Officer/Marketing Officer in the other wings of the Corporation. It was further stated that there were no equivalent posts with the qualification prescribed for Junior Marketing Officer/Marketing Officer and the post of Regional Manager (Agro Chemicals) was no longer available in the Corporation. However, as there were vacancies in the posts of Junior Assistants/Senior Assistants, the Corporation stated that if the petitioners were willing to work in the said posts, it was ready to consider their cases. The Corporation accordingly declared that, in spite of its best efforts and for the reasons stated in the proceedings, it was not in a position to accommodate the petitioners as Marketing Officers/Senior Marketing Officers or Regional Managers and the interim order dated 04.10.2007 was stated to have been complied with. In effect, the Corporation did not abide by the orders of this Court but unilaterally modified the same by offering the petitioners the posts of Senior Assistants, which was obviously not in keeping with this Court's directions. However, owing to financial constraints, K.B.Jagan Mohan and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar accepted the Corporation's offer, without prejudice to their rights, and were appointed as Senior Assistants on 18.11.2008. This action on their part however does not absolve the Corporation of its blatantly contumacious conduct in re-writing the directions of this Court.
Thereafter, by order dated 26.03.2009 passed in WPMP No.27607 of 2007 in W.P.No.19505 of 2006, this Court extended the order granted to P.S.S.Ravi Kumar to P.Venkaiah, allowing him liberty to approach the Corporation which was directed to accommodate him in an appropriate post as was done in the case of P.S.S.Ravi Kumar. Similarly, by order dated 13.10.2009 passed in WPMP No.10833 of 2009 in W.P.No.20387 of 2006, this Court extended the same benefit to B.Kishan. They were thereupon appointed as Senior Assistants in the Corporation. Perusal of the individual proceedings dated 13.04.2006 passed separately against each of the petitioners reflects that they are practically identical. The first paragraph of these proceedings reads to the effect that the appointment of each of the petitioners was to the post of Senior Marketing Officer which was exclusively earmarked for the Agro Chemicals Division. This introductory paragraph itself goes against the grain of the judgment in B.KISHAN1 which unequivocally held that the appointment of the petitioners was to posts in the Corporation and not to any exclusive Department or Division thereof. The Corporation thereafter recapitulated the factual events at unnecessary length, once again echoing erroneously that the 55 Officers had been exclusively recruited in the Agro Chemicals Division. Extracting the directions of this Court in para 63 of B.KISHAN1, the Corporation stated that its Board of Directors, at its 220th Meeting held on 29.03.2006, considered the cases in accordance with the observations of this Court in B.KISHAN1 in letter and spirit and came to the conclusion that there was no feasibility of operating the roster backwards in the Agro Chemicals Division as the said Division was closed down. This observation amply demonstrates the complete failure on the part of the Board of Directors of the Corporation, and its total non-application of mind, in understanding and implementing the directions of this Court. This Court was well aware of the fact that the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation had been closed down. The operation of the roster backwards, as directed by this Court, was to be considered taking the Corporation as a whole. This is very clear from para 43 of the Judgment extracted supra. It was upon the Corporation examining the feasibility of operating the roster backwards taking the Corporation as a unit and, if the same was found to be feasible, that the petitioners were required to be considered for appointment, if found eligible and qualified, in similar posts in the other Divisions. Therefore, the bald and mechanical conclusion of the Board of Directors of the Corporation that it was not feasible to operate the roster backwards in the Agro Chemicals Division, as it had been closed, reflects clear disobedience to the first directive of this Court in B.KISHAN1. Having misdirected itself at the very threshold, the Corporation then went about compounding the same. According to it, there were no equal posts with the qualifications and experience of the petitioners existing in the other Divisions of the Corporation. In this regard, it would be profitable to examine the staff structure in the Corporation.
The Administrative Manual of the Corporation, effective from 01.12.1972, reflects that the administration in the organization was to consist of the Head Office at Hyderabad and Regional Offices at Hyderabad, Jagtial, Vizianagaram, Bapatla and Anantapur. The Circular dated 23.07.1987 provided for a six tier structure to be maintained in the Corporation for the Land Development, Agro Chemicals, and the Finance and Accounts Departments. This six tier structure was to consist of a General Manager, Deputy General Manager, Assistant General Manager, Manager, Deputy Manager and Assistant Manager. The Circular dated 31.01.1985 provided for reallocation of work to the Area Managers (Land Development), who were to be solely responsible for various activities including sales of Agricultural Implements and Agro Service Centre (Show Rooms). These Area Managers were to be assisted, amongst others, by the Regional Managers of Land Development, Drilling, Workshops as well as the Sales Managers and Agricultural Officers/Development Officers. The Regional Manager In-Charge of a Regional Office was to have jurisdiction over the Districts specified and was to discharge three specific functions, one of which was to supervise, inspect and review the working of the units of the Corporation. The staff pattern of the Regional Manager's Office was also specified, both in terms of the office as well as the workshop, after sales service, repair and overheads. Significantly, there is no mention of a Senior or Junior Marketing Officer in this staff structure. The classification of the staff is also detailed in this Circular and states to the effect that the staff would comprise of Classes I to IV and casual labour. Again, there is no mention of either a Senior or a Junior Marketing Officer in this classification. Filling of vacancies in the posts by taking the services on deputation of suitable Central or State Government officials or employees of other Government Undertakings is however permitted under the Circular. The Administrative Manual and the Circulars therefore make it clear that no proper cadre was maintained within the Corporation. In this backdrop, no steps were taken by the Board of Directors to identify equivalence of posts in different Divisions, though employees of the Corporation were required to work in any Division irrespective of the Division to which they were initially posted. This is clear from the promotion order dated 06.05.1987 of P.Venkaiah, the petitioner in W.P.No.19505 of 2006.
Appendix IV in the Administrative Manual deals with the qualifications and experience required for various posts. The posts specified thereunder include the posts of Sales Manager and Regional Manager but there is no post of Senior or Junior Marketing Officer. However, the post of Assistant Marketing Officer is available which requires a qualification of graduation and three years of experience in marketing. There is no post of Deputy Manager but admittedly, the deputationists from Government service are still being continued in the service of the Corporation as Deputy Managers! Further, there was no division of the posts of Regional Managers to mean that there were separate Regional Managers for the Agro Chemicals, the Land Development and the Farm Mechanization Divisions. These distinctions seem to have been invented by the Corporation along the way and there was no actual sanction for these posts as per its guidelines. Sri Meherchand Nori, learned counsel for the Corporation, conceded that there were no structured cadres within the different Divisions of the Corporation indicating any scope for determining equivalence except in terms of pay. Therefore, the exercise undertaken by the Board of Directors whereby it came to the conclusion that there were no equivalent posts with the qualifications and experience possessed by the petitioners required further elaboration. However, the impugned proceedings dated 13.04.2006 shed no light on this aspect. In fact, except for a long winded narration of the factual history, the conclusion of the Board of Directors is not qualified with any reasoning. The mere ipsi dixit of the Board of Directors therefore does not commend credibility. Further, the various orders referred to hereinafter indicate that those who possessed the same qualifications as the petitioners and who worked in the State's Agriculture Department were brought on deputation to work in the Corporation in various posts in or around the same time that the impugned proceedings were passed by the Board of Directors. There is no explanation forthcoming as to how the petitioners were in any manner less qualified or experienced than these Government employees who were brought on deputation and who were continued in the Corporation well over the stipulated period of deputation. Significantly, the Board of Directors of the Corporation only referred to the cases of C.S.Reddy and P.Sudhakar Reddy as they were mentioned in the body of the judgment in B.KISHAN1. The Board, however, conveniently ignored the fact that this Court in para 63 of the judgment directed it to consider and examine the feasibility of accommodating the petitioners in equivalent/similar posts in other Divisions including the posts filled up subsequent to the closure of the Agro Chemicals Division with deputationists or otherwise. Therefore, the Board was also required to consider the cases of the other deputationists and retired employees who were working in its service. Conveniently brushing aside this aspect of the matter, the Board of Directors merely limited its consideration to the cases of C.S.Reddy and P.Sudhakar Reddy. The proceedings dated 23.08.2005 issued by the Corporation demonstrate that C.S.Reddy, who retired as a Zonal Manager in the KRIBHCO, submitted a representation to the Minister for Agriculture stating that he was willing to work in the Corporation as an Advisor (Marketing) for the proposed ARSKs and the said representation was forwarded by the Minister to the Corporation with the endorsement that his services may be used for the season. Thereupon, a detailed proposal was submitted by the Corporation to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Agriculture & Co- operation Department, to approve the hiring of C.S.Reddy on contract basis and he was accordingly appointed and continued in the service of the Corporation for nearly six years. The Board ignored the fact that C.S.Reddy possessed a M.Sc. Degree in Agriculture which is the qualification of K.B.Jagan Mohan. Further, C.S.Reddy had worked in a different organization but in spite of the same, the Board conveniently found that he was more experienced than the petitioners who rendered service in the Corporation itself and justified his appointment for one year. However, C.S.Reddy was continued well beyond the initial period of one year and was relieved only in the year 2010. Notably, K.B.Jagan Mohan and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar who were found experienced enough to be placed as In-Charge Regional Managers of several Districts earlier, were found unsuitable! There is no explanation forthcoming as to why their experience ranked lower than that of C.S.Reddy, who had worked in a different organization and who possessed the same qualification as K.B.Jagan Mohan. The case of Sri P.Sudhakar Reddy is no doubt incomparable to the petitioners as he possessed an engineering qualification.
The instances of deputationists who seem to regard the Corporation as some sort of greener pastures and were brought and retained in the Corporation at that time and after passing of the impugned proceedings are manifold and significant.
By letter dated 13.03.2006 the Corporation requested the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, to depute the services of one V.U.V.Ramana, an Agricultural Officer in the service of the State, who had expressed willingness to work in the Corporation on deputation, for an initial period of one year as an Assistant Manager. The qualification of Sri V.U.V.Ramana was also B.Sc. (Agriculture). He was repatriated only in 2010.
One K.Krishna, M.Sc., Assistant Director, Sericulture Department, was brought on deputation to the managerial cadre in the Corporation in 2007 and continued till 2012. K.V.Narasa Raju, B.Sc., and Ramanjaneyulu, B.Sc., (2006- 2009) were also brought on deputation as Regional Managers in the Corporation from the Sericulture Department. Similarly, one Gopalayya, B.Sc., was brought from the Sericulture Department and was deputed to work as a Regional Manager at Nellore from 2006 to 2009.
One Y.V.Raghavaiah, who was appointed as a Junior Assistant and subsequently as a Marketing Officer Grade-I on 07.02.1983 in the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation, was posted to another Division upon the closure of the Agro Chemicals Division and he was allowed to continue in service and retire thereafter on attaining superannuation. Similarly, Vidyasagar and B.H.Panduranga Reddy, who were engineering graduates, were posted in the Personnel Division and were allowed to continue till their retirement.
In so far as G.Ram Babu, Regional Manager in the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation is concerned, his services were also terminated on 22.11.1997 and he filed W.P.No.35924 of 1997 before this Court. At the same time, he submitted a representation to the Government which was considered favourably and he was sent on deputation and remained in service till his retirement. G.O.Rt.No.911, Agriculture & Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 08.09.2006 reflects that his services were placed at the disposal of the Government of India and he was permitted to draw his salary for the period 18.09.1998 to 01.07.2002 as a special case. This salary was paid by the Corporation though he was on leave from 30.03.1998 till 30.06.1998 and absented himself from 02.07.1998 onwards. His services were placed at the disposal of the Government of India on 05.02.2003. In effect, he did not work for this period but was paid salary from out of the coffers of the Corporation.
K.B.Jagan Mohan averred that his juniors B.V.Krishna Reddy and G.Prasada Rao were continued as Junior Marketing Officers and their services were regularized thereafter by placing them on a timescale, but his services were terminated. It was pointed out that these NMR Marketing Officers had sought regularization in service by filing a writ petition before this Court prior to the notification of the VRS. While so, the Corporation independently regularized their service and subsequently withdrew the same. The withdrawal of the regularization orders was challenged before the Court by both of them and their writ petitions were ultimately allowed. Admittedly, these two Officers are still continuing in the service of the Corporation as on date.
By Resolution dated 11.04.2006, the Board of Directors of the Corporation granted permission for hiring the services of Agriculture Graduates as Coordinators for the ARSKs and also technically qualified retired persons to monitor Farm Machinery, Land Development and Horticulture Schemes through placement agencies on contract basis. In this context, permission was sought to hire the services of 10 Agriculture Graduates and two retired persons on contract basis through such agencies. On 20.04.2006, the Corporation addressed a letter to M/s.Ace Corporate Solution (P) Limited, a recruitment company, informing it that it intended to hire services of two technically qualified persons on contract basis to monitor Farm Machinery, Land Development and Subsidy Schemes of various Departments. The qualification required was a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering/agricultural engineering. Again, by letter dated 29.04.2006, the Corporation addressed M/s.Ace Corporate Solution (P) Limited stating that it intended to hire the services of 7 Graduates as Coordinators to monitor its ARSKs in the State and the qualification required therefor was B.Sc. in Agriculture.
By G.O.Rt.No.571, Agriculture & Cooperation (FP.I) Department, dated 07.06.2006 the Government of Andhra Pradesh permitted the Corporation to hire the services of K.L.Raju, a retired General Manager, as a consultant on contract basis to head the Farm Mechanization activity. Other retired employees such as K.Venugopal Reddy, M.Sesha Sai, P.Peddi Reddy, all possessed B.Sc. degrees in Agriculture and were continued in service from 2006 to 2011, except in the case of P.Peddi Reddy who was retained from 2006 to 2009. Subramanyam, a retired employee with a B.Com. Degree, was continued in service as a Senior Coordinator at the Head Office of the Corporation from 2006 to 2010. M.Venateswarlu and Salu Reddy, deputationists from the State Agriculture Department, were retained from 2005 to 2009 and 2006 to 2008 respectively. They possessed the qualification of M.Sc. (Agriculture) and B.Sc. (Agriculture) respectively. They worked as Deputy Managers, a non-existent post in the Corporation. Salu Reddy was posted as a Deputy Manager to assist the Regional Manager of the Corporation at Anantapur in organizing distribution of fertilizers through ARSKs and also fertilizers distribution under SHM scheme. This order is dated 02.09.2008. P.Muralidhara Rao, an Assistant Director of Agriculture in the State service, was brought on deputation under order dated 11.09.2008 and was posted as a Regional Manager at Jagitial.
A list of deputationists from other Departments working in the Corporation as on 05.12.2012 was placed on record and reflects that several Assistant Directors from the Agriculture Department of the State were taken on deputation to work as Regional Managers and Deputy Managers in the Corporation. Most of them possessed either graduate or post graduate qualification in Agriculture. For instance, K.Sri Devi, M.Sc. (Agriculture), is working as a Deputy Manager at the Head Office of the Corporation in its ARSKs Section at Hyderabad. By order dated 22.08.2011, she was allocated the following subjects:
1) Seed Distribution, Settlement of Seed Accounts of supplying Agencies and monitoring the seed distribution.
2) Supply of Gypsum, Settlement of Accounts of Gypsum to suppliers and monitoring with ARSKs.
3) Examination & sanction of the proposals for opening of new ARSKs, Security Deposits, cancellation/closure of ARSKs.
4) Any other subject as allocated by VC & MD.
Y.Gangadhar, B.Sc. (Agriculture), is working as a Regional Manager at the Regional Office, Nizamabad. Y.Madhavi, M.Sc. (Agriculture), worked as a Deputy Manager in the ARSKs Section at the Corporation's Head Office in Hyderabad. She joined as such in June, 2005 and was relieved only in January, 2012. Hari Priya, B.Sc. (Agriculture), also worked for over seven years from October, 2005 to January, 2012 as a Deputy Manager (Fert.) in the ARSKs Section at the Corporation's Head Office in Hyderabad. K.Vidya Kumari, B.Sc. (Agriculture) worked as a Deputy Manager in the ARSKs Section at the Corporation's Head Office in Hyderabad from January, 2006 to December, 2011.
Resolution No.3695 dated 29.03.2006 of the Board of Directors of the Corporation at its 220th Board Meeting reflects that the status of the ARSKs was discussed and it was approved that the services of VRS people were not to be hired as the same would be against the spirit of the scheme. The required agricultural graduates were to be engaged on contract basis only through placement agencies. It was further resolved that in view of the recent retirements in the top level executive cadres of the Corporation, the Vice Chairman & Managing Director was authorized to hire the services of retired persons having proficiency in the relevant field through placement agencies duly fixing the remuneration for such services. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 15.05.2006, the Corporation reallocated the work amongst the staff and Junior Assistants, Junior Accountants, Mechanics, Senior Assistants, Auxiliary Assistants and Turners were allocated the duties of Marketing and Sales Executives. Similarly, by order dated 06.01.2006, the Corporation transferred and posted Mechanics and Bulldozer Operators as Marketing Executives and Assistants to the ASC In-Charge. One B.Venkateswarlu, Mechanic Grade-II, was posted to assist the Senior Marketing Officer in the ARSK activity at Eluru while J.Anjaiah, Mechanic Grade-II was posted to work as a Marketing Executive in Medak District.
As pointed by this Court in B.KISHAN1 it is not for this Court to embark on the exercise of determining equivalence of posts or qualifications. However, the action of the Corporation in distinguishing between posts and qualifications which, on the face of it, appear to be similar, definitely warrants interference. Deputationists with qualifications similar to the petitioners were accommodated but the petitioners were shown the door without semblance of a reason. The material placed before this Court reflects that even after the closure of the Agro Chemicals Division of the Corporation it continued with an ARSKs Division. This Division was obviously to monitor the functioning and working of the ARSKs. Persons with B.Sc. qualification in Agriculture were either brought on deputation or continued after retirement to man this Division such as Hari Priya, K.Vidya Kumari, K.Venu Gopal Reddy, M.Shesha Sai, P.Peddi Reddy, Gopalayya and Ramanjuneyulu. However, the petitioners were not considered for these posts. There is no explanation why. The Corporation admitted the fact that pursuant to the VRS, there was no Officer belonging to the Scheduled Castes left in the Corporation. Having stated so, the Corporation conveniently ignored the fact that this situation was found to be an anomalous one by this Court in B.KISHAN1 and that was the reason which motivated this Court to direct the top decision making body of the Corporation, viz., its Board of Directors, to undertake an exercise for rectifying it. It was therefore not enough for the Board of Directors of the Corporation to baldly state that there were a sufficient number of employees in the Corporation belonging to the Scheduled Castes in other cadres. There is no rebuttal to the averment of the petitioners that all the existing Scheduled Caste employees of the Corporation hold Class- III and Class-IV posts. This, obviously, is not the import of the reservation policy sanctioned by our Constitution.
Notwithstanding the Corporation's self-serving statement that it had tried its level best to accommodate the petitioners, this Court finds the impugned proceedings to be a complete negation of the trust and faith reposed by this Court in the Board of Directors of the Corporation, being its top decision making body, to undertake the exercise in the light of the principles adumbrated in B.KISHAN1. It is indeed unfortunate that this 'top decision making body' of the Corporation misdirected itself from the word go and did its utmost to defeat the very purpose for which it was directed to undertake the exercise. To make matters worse, despite the interim orders of this Court to consider the cases of the petitioners for the specified posts of Senior Marketing Officers, Regional Managers or their equivalent, the Corporation unilaterally modified the said orders and offered the petitioners appointment as Senior Assistants. It is pertinent to note that the orders of the deputation placed before this Court reflect that persons with the same qualification as the petitioners were brought on deputation from Government service to work as Regional Managers/Deputy Managers. As to why the Corporation could not accommodate the petitioners also in the said posts, pursuant to the orders of this Court, is not forthcoming. The Corporation did not even choose to place them on par with B.V.Krishna Reddy and G.Prasada Rao, who were retained as Junior Marketing Officers, but were made to undergo the humiliation of working under their juniors as Senior Assistants. While matters stood thus, the Board of Directors of the Corporation passed a surprising resolution at its 244th Meeting on 29.06.2011. This Resolution, bearing No.4052, reads as follows:
"RESOLVED THAT in supersession to earlier decision by the Board at their 231st Board meeting held on 27.09.2008. Sri P.S.S.Ravi Kumar, Sri K.B.Jagan Mohan, Sri P.Venkaiah and Sri B.Kishan who were appointed as Senior Assistants be appointed afresh, as Senior Marketing Officers by creating supernumerary posts, subject to approval of Government and also outcome of pending wit petitions filed by them, before the Hon'ble High Court.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT VC & MD be and is hereby authorized to initiate action in implementing this resolution."
Having passed this resolution, the Corporation addressed letter dated 23.06.2012 to the Special Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, soliciting suitable orders in the matter. The Government, in turn, addressed letter dated 22.12.2011 calling upon the Corporation to explain in what circumstances its Board had taken a decision on 29.06.2011 when the writ petitions were still pending in this Court. It is pertinent to note that in B.KISHAN1, the Corporation specifically took the stand that it's Articles of Association did not require it to follow Government orders or directions and that it was for the Board of Directors to pass appropriate resolutions adopting or deciding to implement Government policies and programmes. This argument was advanced to counter the claim of the petitioners therein that the Corporation had to implement the Government policy enunciated in G.O.Ms.No.121, Social Welfare (L-I) Department, dated 31.10.1996, with regard to creation of supernumerary posts for reservation category candidates. Having committed itself to this stand, it is inexplicable as to why the Corporation is now expressing helplessness in taking a decision in the matter pertaining to the petitioners. There is no legal sanction for interference by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the functioning of the Corporation. The representatives of the Government are on the Board of Directors of the Corporation. Beyond this, it is neither necessary for the Corporation nor incumbent upon it to seek the approval of the Government of Andhra Pradesh for every step it takes. Perusal of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Corporation reflects that there is no provision therein requiring the Board of Directors of the Corporation to submit its resolutions to the Government for approval before giving effect to the same. Except for the power to induct members on the Board, the Memorandum and Articles of Association do not reflect any supervisory power of the Government over the actual functioning of the Corporation.
It appears that wisdom has dawned of late upon the Corporation and by its Resolution dated 29.06.2011, it has now decided to undo the injustice that it has perpetrated upon the petitioners all through and is now seeking to promote them/ appoint them afresh as Senior Marketing Officers by creating supernumerary posts. Being a legal entity in its own right, the Corporation cannot state that it is helpless in the matter or that it cannot take any action without the sanction of the Government. This aspect was also spelt out by this Court in paras 21 and 22 of the judgment in B.KISHAN1.
Be it noted that even during the pendency of the earlier writ petitions filed by K.B.Jagan Mohan and P.S.S.Ravi Kumar, they were found fit and eligible to supervise the operations of the Corporation in several Districts but immediately thereafter, their services were found redundant notwithstanding the fact that deputationists from Government service with identical qualifications were found fit to be brought and continued. As to why the petitioners could not be considered for these posts, remains a mystery. The action of the Corporation therefore reeks of arbitrariness. Viewed thus, this Court finds that the individual impugned proceedings dated 13.04.2006 passed against the petitioners in this batch of cases suffer from a complete non-application of mind and the exercise reflected therein is in utter violation of the directions of this Court in B.KISHAN1. Deliberately or otherwise, the Board of Directors of the Corporation failed to live up to the expectation reposed in it by this Court it in B.KISHAN1 and passed these self-serving proceedings losing sight of the purpose for which the exercise was directed to be undertaken. The Resolution dated 29.06.2011 of the Board of Directors proposing to accommodate the petitioners as Senior Marketing Officers by creating supernumerary posts is a step in the right direction, albeit, highly belated. However, their entitlement to relief in these writ petitions endures independently, notwithstanding the seeming largesse that the Corporation now wants to extend them. Apropos the question as to what relief and monetary benefits should be granted to the petitioners, given the above facts, this Court finds guidance in the following observations of the Supreme Court in THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD v. C.MUDDAIAH2:
"32 ......... Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a court of law. The court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The court, in the circumstances, directs the authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is "no work no pay". In appropriate cases, however, a court of law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The court, in a given case, may hold that the person was willing to work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The court may in the circumstances, direct the authority to grant him all benefits considering "as if he had worked". It, therefore, cannot be contended as an absolute proposition of law that no direction of payment of consequential benefits can be granted by a court of law ........."
The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings dated 13.04.2006 passed against the petitioners. The Corporation shall provide appointment to the petitioners herein as Deputy Managers or Regional Managers on par with the existing deputationists, such as K.Sri Devi, in the ARSKs Division of the Corporation with equivalent pay. Their appointment to the said posts shall be reckoned from the date of the impugned proceedings, viz., 13.04.2006, with all consequential and monetary benefits. The salaries drawn by the petitioners as Senior Assistants and the VRS/terminal benefits paid to them, if any, shall be adjusted against the arrears payable. As P.Venkaiah has already retired he shall be given the benefit of such appointment for reckoning his pensionary benefits. He shall be paid arrears of the monetary benefits on par with the others, after due adjustment of the salary drawn by him as a Senior Assistant.
The Corporation perpetuated the injustice meted out by it to the petitioners and failed to live up to the expectations of this Court in B.KISHAN1, as reflected by the shallow, unreasoned and perverse proceedings dated 13.04.2006, warranting imposition of costs. The Corporation shall therefore pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) to each of the petitioners. Pending WPMPs, if any, shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order.
____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J.
19TH FEBRUARY, 2013.