Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Nalgonda Srinivasa Rao vs Dr. B. Kishore on 25 February, 2020
Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra
1
ITEM NO.13 COURT NO.6 SECTION XII-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1700/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2006
NALGONDA SRINIVASA RAO & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DR. B. KISHORE & ANR. Respondent(s)
(impleading party ON IA 70059/2017 and IA No.133928/2017-impleading
party
(IA No. 73602/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 100457/2018 - INTERVENTION APPLICATION
IA No. 133928/2017 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 70059/2017 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 73599/2019 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 124920/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 124913/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
WITH
MA 284/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2016 (XII-A)
(IA No. 73241/2017 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 77709/2017 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 77697/2017 - I/A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE IMPLEADMENT PETITION
IA No. 77699/2017 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1701/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2006 (XII-A)
MA 637/2017 in C.A. No. 5101/2006 (XII-A)
(IA No. 75550/2017 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)
MA 638/2017 in C.A. No. 5100/2006 (XII-A)
(IA No. 75571/2017 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1702/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2006 (XII-A)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1703/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2006 (XII-A)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1810/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2006 (XII-A)
INDU MARWAH
Date: 2020.02.25
19:36:23 IST
Reason:
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1950/2017 in C.A. No. 5101/2006 (XII-A)
(FOR INTERVENTION party ON IA 133754/2018 BY Senthil Jagadeesan
FOR DIRECTION party ON IA 133761/2018 BY Senthil Jagadeesan
2
FOR impleading party ON IA 68935/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 68935/2018
FOR impleading party ON IA 68942/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 68942/2018
FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 69699/2018
FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 69704/2018
FOR impleading party ON IA 96996/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 96996/2018
FOR impleading party ON IA 96997/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 96997/2018
FOR impleading party ON IA 97268/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 97268/2018
FOR impleading party ON IA 97269/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 97269/2018
FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 97272/2018
FOR impleading party ON IA 98904/2018
FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 98904/2018
FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 98906/2018
IA No. 97272/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 69704/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 69699/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 98906/2018 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION
IA No. 68942/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 98904/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 68935/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 97269/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 97268/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 96997/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 96996/2018 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1951/2017 in C.A. No. 5101/2006 (XII-A)
(IA No. 98514/2018 – INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1952/2017 in C.A. No. 5099/2006 (XII-A)
Diary No(s). 26117/2018 (XII-A)
( IA No. 97585/2018 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE CONTEMPT
PETITION)
Diary No(s). 26647/2018 (XII-A)
( IA No. 100088/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT
IA No. 100085/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT)
Date : 25-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDU MALHOTRA
3
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Ramesh, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Ojha, Adv.
Mr. Shekhar Kumar, AOR
Mr. Siddharth Bansal, Adv.
Ms. Yashaswini Bansal, Adv.
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. V. Sridhar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR
Kumar Neeraj, Adv.
Mr. M. Vijaya Bhaskar, AOR
Mr. Tanmaya Agarwal, AOR
Mr. Sadineni Ravi Kumar, AOR
Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR
Mr. B. Paramesh, Adv.
Mr. Chandra Mohan Anisetty, Adv.
Mr. A.V.S. Raju, Adv.
Mr. P. Muni Subramanyam, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Prashant Kr. Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. P. Srinivas Reddy, Adv.
M/S. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR
Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR
Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR
Mr. M.V. Rama, Adv.(APPSC)
Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR
Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Mr. B. Karuna Karan, Adv.
Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, Adv.
Ms. Shruiti Chowdhary, Adv.
Mr.Mrinal Kanwar, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh J, Adv.
Mr. Senthil Jagadeeshan, AOR
4
Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR
Mr.P.B. Suresh, Adv.
Mr. Karthik Jayashankar, Adv.
Mr. G.N. Reddy, AOR
Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv.
Mr. Digvijay Harichandan, Adv.
Mr. D. Rama Krishna Reddy, Adv.
Mr. P. Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv.
Mr. A.V. Rao, Adv.
Mr. Ch. Leela Sarveswar, Adv.
Mr. D. Srinivas, Adv.
Ms. G. Usha Rani, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
In M. Surender Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2015) 8 SCC 410, this Court held that GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002 would be prospective in nature and would not apply to the process of selection started pursuant to the advertisement No.10 of 1999. The directions issued in paras 29 and 31 were as under:
“29. For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002 is prospective and is not applicable to the process of selection started pursuant to Advertisement No.10 of 1999 including the 973 executive posts which were ordered to be filled up by the High Court pursuant to the advertisement. The Tribunal erred in directing APPSC to recast the merit list pursuant to GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002. The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 27.12.2004 rightly held that the order passed by the Court will not affect the appointments already made to the 5 executive post between 2001-2002 but erred in holding that the selection is to be made in accordance with GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002.
… … …
31. In view of the foregoing discussions, we direct the respondents to fill up the rest of the posts including the posts of Municipal Commissioners Grade III, Assistant Commercial Tax Officers, Assistant Labour Officers in executive cadre and Assistant Section Officers in non-
executive cadre, which are vacant, as per the Presidential Order, 1975 and the government orders in consonance with the Presidential Order which were prevailing in the year 1999 when the advertisement was issued. The inter se seniority between the persons appointed in the first round and the persons appointed afterwards in the same cadre, if any, shall be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with the rules, depending on the merit ranking obtained by them.” We have been given to understand that in the selection process started in the year 1999, 113 candidates were initially recommended for executive posts of Assistant Section Officers on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination. Subsequently, in a writ petition it was brought to the notice of the High Court that there were about 973 posts lying unfilled and the vacancies were not reported to the Public Service Commission. Under the orders passed by the High Court, those 973 posts were directed to be filled up. Consequently, in the supplementary selection undertaken pursuant to the directions of the High Court, 973 posts were also filled up. The selection process however went on till about 2005.
6
Thus, 1086 candidates were appointed.
The issue whether the effect of GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002 which contemplated reservation of certain seats for the local candidates could apply to these selections, was raised before the High Court. Though the High Court had ruled in favour of applicability of this GO to the selections in question, that part of the order of the High Court was set aside.
We thus have to see that the law laid down by this Court insofar as 1999-2000 selections are concerned is complied with in full measure.
As a logical corollary, how many persons came to be appointed in such selection is required to be known. At the same time, how the directions issued in para 29 of its judgment were carried out by the respective States of A.P. and Telangana also has significance. If the directions were issued by this Court that GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002 could not be applied to the selections before the said G.O. came into force, the selection list had to be re- shaped accordingly.
We called upon the learned counsel appearing for the States of A.P. and Telangana to place before us material as to what follow up action was taken by the respective States after the decision of this Court in M.Surender Reddy. Unfortunately, none of the counsel 7 could pin-point any material nor could they invite our attention to the affidavits which may throw some light on the controversy. There is another dimension added by Para 31 of the decision of this Court that unfilled vacancies of the selection of 1999-2000 must also be filled up going by the Rules then in existence. It would thus mean that the balance vacancies of the selection of 1999-2000 ought to be filled up without taking resort to GOMs No.124 dated 7.3.2002.
None of the affidavits filed on behalf of the States of A.P. and Telangana again throw any light as to how the directions in Para 31 were complied with by the respective State Governments.
In the circumstances we direct:
(a) The Secretaries of the respective governments of A.P. and Telangana, in-charge of General Administration (Services) Departments to depute such officer or officers who are well-versed in the matter and who could assist the Court as regards the issues highlighted hereinabove in every respect, to attend the proceedings on the next date with all the relevant record.
(b) The respective state governments are also directed to keep affidavits ready giving all the details as to the actions taken by the respective state governments in terms of paras 29 and 31 of the judgment of this Court, sworn by Competent Officials of 8 the concerned state governments.
(c) In case none of these details are forth-coming, the concerned Secretaries of the respective state governments shall personally remain present in Court on 3.3.2020.
(d) Any non-compliance of the directions as detailed above, shall be viewed seriously.
Copies of this order shall be given to the learned Standing Counsel for the respective state governments during the course of the day so that appropriate messages can be transmitted to the concerned authorities immediately.
List on 3.3.2020.
(INDU MARWAH) (RAJINDER KAUR) COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR