Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K.Anil Kumar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 28 September, 2022
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P. Nos.15751 of 2020 and 14536 of 2021
COMMON ORDER:
Writ Petition No.15751 of 2020 is filed by Sri M.C. Raghupathi-writ petitioner to declare the action of the 2nd respondent-The Registrar, Dravidian University, Srinivasa Vanam, Kuppam, in issuing proceedings No.DU/Estt/E-1/604 /2010, dated 03.07.2020 promoting Sri K. Anil Kumar Reddy - unofficial respondent, Assistant Engineer (Civil) as Deputy Executive Engineer is bad in law and writ petitioner is the senior most and he ought to have been appointed as Deputy Executive Engineer and the post in which he is working "Estate Officer" is equivalent to Assistant Executive Engineer.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that after filing of writ petition the respondent University has reverted back Sri Anil Kumar Reddy, to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) by Proceedings No.DU/Estt/E-1/604/2010, dated 11.05.2021. The Petitioner consequently prayed to consider his case as Deputy Executive Engineer in the place of Mr. Anil Kumar.
3. The Registrar of University has filed counter affidavit for the above said writ petition and contended that the said writ petitioner was appointed as Estate Officer and no designation 2 was mentioned. Duties of the Estate Officer are entirely different from the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) and Deputy Executive Engineer (Civil) which are of mainstream engineering services. The petitioner has been appointed in a totally different work setup against the Estate Officer, whose job is protection of the University properties, which does not fall in the stream of engineering. And it was stated that the AE and AEE are only eligible for promotion as DEE with a minimum service of 3 years.
4. It is further asserted that the respondent no.3 who is writ petitioner in other writ petition was executed more important structures as Library building, Auditorium, Hostels and staff quarters in the university. It is asserted that the petitioner has been appointed in a total different work set up is against the Estate Officer, whose job is protection of University properties which does not fall in the mainstream of engineering. However, after filing of Writ Petition, the respondent authorities have cancelled the promotion issued to Sri K. Anil Kumar Reddy, who is the petitioner in W.P. No.14536 of 2021 on the ground that the University was erroneously has given promotion to Sri K. Anil Kumar Reddy.
3
5. W.P. No.14536 of 2021: The Writ petitioner has been promoted vide proceedings DU/Estt./E-1/604/2010 as Deputy Executive Engineer. After filing of the Writ petition by Sri Raghupathi, the Registrar of the University has cancelled the promotion given to the petitioner and reverted the petitioner as Assistant Executive Engineer, vide impugned proceedings No.DU/Estt/E-1/604/2010. The said proceedings has been assailed in the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is eligible for the promotion of Deputy Executive Engineer as per the service rules on the basis of the engineering personnel and to the promotion of the Deputy Executive Engineer, the feeder cadre is Assistant Executive Engineer and further contention is that no notice was issued before reverting the petitioner to the feeder category, which is violation of natural justice.
6. University has filed its counter and asserted that one Mr. J. Bhaskar, who is executive Engineer has been promoted without the sanctioned post consequently, the petitioner herein was promoted to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer vide proceedings dated 03.7.2020 without waiting for the reply from the 1st respondent-Government to the 2nd respondent's letter dated 20.05.2020. And asserted that the promotion of the 4 petitioner herein was rejected as it was not approved in the meeting held on 01.04.2021. The reversion of the petitioner is consequent to withdrawal of the promotion of J. Bhaskar and hence, in the reversion of the petitioner is not at all arbitrary or illegal and it is further asserted that the university without verifying the academic credentials, genuineness and validity of the certificates which obtained by the petitioner through distance mode and given promotion who is not eligible to the post of Assistant Engineer with B.Tech. Degree under Distance Education mode from JRN rajasthan and any consequential promotion pursuant to the said appointment in the University is questionable and invalid in law. Further asserted that reverting petitioner without notice is curable defect and the same will be rectified by the University in the time bound manner by giving a notice if an opportunity is given by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the University would submit that there is no such Executive Engineer post in the University, unless such post was approved and sanctioned by the Government. And the present issue has been cropped up due to the wrong promotion given to one Mr. J. Bhaskar as Executive Engineer in the University. There is specific prohibition under Section 27 of the University Act, which specifically prohibits 5 creation of any post without prior approval from the Government.
8. As per the counter affidavits filed by the University both the writ petitioners are not eligible for promotion for different reasons, to resolve the issue this Court feels it is appropriate to remand the matter to the Registrar of the Dravidian University, for which both the counsels and the learned counsel for the university have agreed for remand.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent university would submit that there is no post of Executive Engineer in the University and the post is available for only one year, hence sought for clarification for promotion of Executive Engineer from the cadre of Deputy Executive Engineer.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner-K. Anil Kumar Reddy in Writ Petition No.14536 requested this Court to direct the respondents to continue the petitioner as Deputy Executive Engineer till decision taken by the respondent authorities.
11. Learned counsel for Petitioner-Mr. M.C. Raghupathi in W.P. No.15751 would submit that interim order was expired long back and he is not entitled for such relief. 6
12. Learned counsel appearing for Mr. Anil Kumar, would submit that though the interim order is not in existence still he can continue as Deputy Executive Engineer. Hence, learned counsel requested the court to direct the respondents to continue Mr. K. Anil Kumar Reddy as Deputy Executive Engineer till the decision taken by the University.
13. The University is directed to conclude all the aspects with regard to the reasons indicated above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.
14. With the above said directions, both the writ petitions disposed of.
Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 28-09-2022 Harin 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO 74 W.P. Nos.15751 of 2020 and 14536 of 2021 Date: 28-09-2022 Harin