Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M.Jagannadha Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 26 April, 2024
1
APHC010251302020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 16516/2020
Between:
M.Jagannadha Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following:
1. This writ petition is filed by five petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following relief:
"To issue Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the proceedings Rc.No.Ser.1-A1- 1/101/2013 dated 20.08.2020 preparing the provisional integrated seniority list of principals of government junior colleges and Deputy Vocational Educational Officer in the State of A.P. as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, non-est in the eye 2 of law, contrary to the Amended Rule 3 of A.P. Intermediate Education Service Rules wherein issued in G.O.Ms.No.283 dated 28.11.2008, contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in O.A.No.890/2017 dated 30.07.2018 and also in violation of Hon'ble High Court orders passed in W.P.No.18195 dated 15.11.2019 and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to prepare the provisional integrated seniority list of principals of government junior colleges and Deputy Vocational Educational Officer in the state of A.P. strictly in terms of Amended Rule 3 of A.P. Intermediate Education Service Rules wherein issued in G.O.Ms.No.283 dated 28.11.2008."
2. The 2nd respondent prepared integrated seniority list of Principals of Government Junior Colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh and communicated vide Proc. No.Ser-I-2/350/2012 dated 18.12.2016 as per G.O.Ms.No.26 Social Welfare Department dated 20.02.2009. It is contended that the 2nd respondent prepared the seniority list bypassing the specific rule prescribed under law. Aggrieved by the said seniority list, the petitioners filed O.A.No.890 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. At the stage of admission, the Tribunal passed an interim order suspending the seniority list in proceedings Rc.No.Ser.1-2/350/2012 dated 08.12.2016, pending further orders in the O.A., giving liberty to the respondents to effect promotions to the post of District Vocational Educational Officer or Deputy Director 3 (Academic), taking into consideration the seniority as per Note-3, clarifying that any promotions are subject to furthers in O.A.
3. It is contended that, after receipt of the orders by the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent without complying the same, filed counter affidavit along with vacate application in the said O.A. seeking to vacate the interim order. Finally, the O.A was allowed by the Tribunal on 30.07.2018 directing as follows:
"Therefore, for all the above said reasons, the impugned seniority list issued vide Proc. No.Ser-I-2/350/2012 dated 18.12.2016 is liable to be set-aside and it is accordingly set- aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to prepare the seniority list of principals and Deputy Vocational Education Offices for the purpose of promotion to the post of District Vocational Education Officer by including all those who are on the rolls of the department within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. in the meanwhile, since the Administrative exigencies require filling up of the posts of District Vocational Education Officers, the same can be taken up from among the Principals and Deputy District Vocational Education Officers by taking their seniority in the category of initial Gazetted post of Junior Lecturer into consideration. The OA is accordingly, allowed. As a sequel to allowing the OA, the VMAs are dismissed and CA is closed."4
4. Though the petitioners submitted several representations to implement the order of the Tribunal, for the reasons best known, the 2 nd respondent did not implement the same.
5. Surprisingly, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned proceedings vide Rc.No.Ser.1-A1/101/2013 dated 20.08.2020 and prepared provisional integrated seniority list of principals of government junior colleges and Deputy Vocational Educational Officer in the State of Andhra Pradesh by calling objections from the affected persons. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
6. Respondent No.2 - Commissioner of Intermediate Education filed I.A.No.4 of 2020 i.e vacate stay petition along with counter affidavit, denying the allegations, while admitting about the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A.No.890 of 2017 and W.P.No.18195 of 2019 by this Court. It is specifically submitted that, nearly 47 Principals/Dy.DVOs have submitted their objections including the petitioners except Sri M. Jagannadha Rao. The objections filed by the said 47 Principals/Dy.DVOs is under examination. The first petitioner Sri M. Jagannadha Rao has not even filed his objections. At this stage, without allowing to dispose of the objections filed by the petitioners and others, this writ petition is filed for suspension of the Provisional Seniority List which was communicated and which is premature and not as per the procedure in vogue.
5
7. It is further contended that, the petitioners in the present case were not promoted as Principals temporarily and not regularized their services in the cadre of Principals and not commenced their probation due to disputes in their feeder category of Junior Lecturers and hence, declaration of probation and deemed to be declaration of probation does not arise. Due to the above reasons, the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Principals has not been finalized in their respective zones. Without finalization of their seniority in the cadre of principals, their names cannot be included in the Provisional Integrated Seniority.
8. Respondent Nos.3 to 9 also filed vacate stay petition and counter affidavit in I.A.No.3 of 2020, contending that the provisional seniority list cannot be challenged as aggrieved persons can file their objections to the said provisional list. The impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2020 is a provisional seniority list. Even after issuance of final seniority list by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners still have a right of appeal and therefore the writ petition is premature, therefore, on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of submission of objections to the provisional seniority list and filing of statutory appeal against the final seniority list of the 2nd respondent to the Appellate Authority, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. It is contended that the impugned provisional seniority list in the cadre of Principals/Dy.DVOs dated 20.08.2020 for those who are promoted 6 and regularized upto 2010 and the remaining Principals/Dy.DVOs would be shown in the seniority list after being regularized and finalizing their seniority lists in their respective zones. The petitioners have not mentioned about their dates of promotion to the post of principals, as such it amounts to suppression of facts. When the impugned seniority list speaks that the seniority list for those who are promoted after 2010 would be prepared after regularization of their services and preparation and finalization of their seniority lists in their respective zones, the petitioners in a hasty manner, approached this Court without having a legal right and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that, the said seniority list is issued in violation of the Amended Rule 3 of the A.P. Intermediate Education Service Rules issued in G.O.Ms.No.283 dated 28.11.2018 and contrary to the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal passed in O.A.No.890 of 2017 dated 30.07.2018, as such the same is liable to be set-aside. Learned counsel contends that, for the purpose of promotion to the post of District Vocational Education Officer, a common seniority list of Deputy Vocational Education Officers and Principals of Government Junior Colleges, who have completed three (03) years of service in the respective feeder category shall be prepared and the common seniority list of Deputy Vocational Education Officers and Principals of Government Junior Colleges shall be based on their service reckoned from the date of regular appointment to the initial 7 Gazetted post of junior lecturer/Junior Lecturer (Vocational), provided that the seniority of person belong to the same unit shall not be disturbed. In view of the said rule position, the seniority shall be prepared by the respondents strictly by following the seniority in the category of junior lecturers only, but not otherwise. Learned counsel contends that the 2nd respondent in violation of the said Rules initially prepared integrated seniority on 08.12.2016 and the same was set- aside by the Tribunal and again prepared the same manner in violation of the said court orders, violating their own rules. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Dr. N. Ramachandra Rao 1 , to contend that vertical seniority should be maintained, but in the present case, several juniors in the category of junior lecturer were given accelerated promotions as Principals as per the Rule of Reservations and in view of giving consequential seniority to the persons who got accelerated promotions, seniors to those persons are deprived of their rights and also losing their promotional opportunities and requested to allow the writ petition.
11. Learned Government Pleader for Education, while reiterating the contentions urged in the affidavit, specifically contended that, the petitioners in the present case were not promoted as Principals even on 1 1990 SCC (3) 590s 8 temporary basis and not regularized their services in the cadre of Principals and not commenced their probation due to disputes in their feeder category of Junior Lecturers and hence, declaration of probation and deemed to be declaration of probation does not arise. Due to the above reasons, the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Principals has not been finalized in their respective zones. Without finalization of their seniority in the cadre of principals, their names cannot be included in the Provisional Integrated Seniority and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
12. On the other hand, the arguments of Sri J. Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.3 to 10 is multifold:
a. When the petitioners are challenging the seniority list, it is necessary to implead the affected parties as proper and necessary parties to the list. But, the petitioners have approached this Court without impleading the affected parties to obtain the orders behind their back;
b. When there is an alternate remedy of submission of objections in the provisional seniority list and filing statutory appeal against the final seniority list of the 2nd respondent to the Appellate Authority, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed;9
c. Challenging the provisional seniority list for the period prior to their promotion dates without availing alternative remedy and without arraying parties by suppressing the facts is abuse of process of law.
d. Seniority of an employee in a particular cadre has to be prepared in accordance with seniority rule as existing as on date of their promotion. In view of Rule 33 of General Rules, date of promotion shall be the basis for determining the seniority of an employee and accordingly, Respondent Nos.3 to 10 whose dates of promotion as Principal being prior to G.O.Ms.No.282, their seniority shall be prepared based on their original dates of promotion as Principals and accordingly they were shown as being promoted and being regularized. Hence, the challenge of the petitioners without drawing distinction and seeking for fixation of seniority of Principals/Dy.DVOs in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.282 dated 28.11.2008 shows that the petitioners approached this Court with unclean hands and finally requested to dismiss the writ petition.
13. Heard Sri S. Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Education and Sri J. Sudheer, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents and perused the material available on record.
10
14. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted and regularized as Principals on 31.01.2007, 31.08.2007, 02.09.207, 17.09.2008, 12.10.2007, 13.09.2007 and 12.10.2007 respectively. Final Integrated Seniority List of Principals was prepared and communicated vide proceedings dated 08.12.2016. Aggrieved thereby, some of the Principals have filed O.A.No.890 of 2017 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal, setting-aside the seniority list dated 08.12.2016. Further, the Tribunal directed to prepare the seniority list of Principals/Dy.DVOs for the purpose of promotion to the post of DVEO, including all those who are on the rolls of the department within a period of ten weeks. It was also held that, since the administrative exigencies require filling up of the posts of DVEOs, the same can be taken up from among the Principals/Dy.DVOs by taking their seniority in the category of initial Gazetted post of JL into consideration.
15. Challenging the order of the Tribunal in O.A.No.890 of 2017 dated13.07.2018, some Principals have filed W.P.No.18195 of 2019 before the Hon'ble High Court. This Court vide order dated 15.11.2019, directed that the orders of the Tribunal be implemented by the respondents within two months.
16. However, the Amendment issued to Rule 3 of A.P. Intermediate Education Service Rules vide G.O.Ms.No.283 H.E (IE.1) Department 11 dated 28.11.2008, specified that, for the purpose of promotion to the post of District Vocational Education Officer, a common seniority list of Deputy District Vocational Education Officers and Principals of Government Junior Colleges, who have completed three years of service in the respective feeder category, shall be prepared. This common seniority list of Deputy District Vocational Education Officers and Principals of Government Junior Colleges shall be based on their service reckoned from the date of regular appointment to the initial Gazetted post of Junior Lecturer/Junior Lecturer (Vocational), provided that the seniority of person belonging to the same unit shall not be disturbed.
17. Keeping in view the orders of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.18195 of 2019 dated 15.11.2019 and orders of the Tribunal in O.A.No.890 of 2017 dated 13.07.2018, the Provisional Integrated Seniority list of Principals of Government Junior Colleges were prepared in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.282 dated 28.11.2008. In response thereof, nearly 47 Principals/Dy.DVOs have submitted their objections including the petitioners, except the first petitioner. Having submitting the objections, the petitioners filed the present writ petition for suspension of the Provisional Seniority List, is nothing but stalling the entire process. Moreover, this provisional seniority relates to the promotions as Principals/Dy.DVOs upto the year 2010 only. Admittedly, the petitioners were promoted after the year 2011.
12
18. The Provisional Seniority List would be complete only when there are no objections received or when there is no grievance with regard to such Provisional Seniority List. When the petitioner(s) have not even filed their objections, deciding the writ petition without disposing the objections filed by the petitioners and others, would be premature.
19. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, with the following directions:
a. The petitioners shall submit their objections/representation to the concerned Authority with regard to the Provisional Seniority List, if not submitted earlier, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b. On receipt of the objections/ representations submitted by the petitioners and other aggrieved persons, the concerned Authority shall consider all the grounds raised and dispose of the same within a period of three (03) weeks thereon;
c. After disposing the objections/representations, the 2nd respondent shall prepare and publish the Final Seniority List, strictly in accordance with Rule 3 of G.O.Ms.No.283 H.E (I.E.1) Dept. dated 28.11.2008.13
20. Interim order granted earlier by this Court shall stand vacated, as such, I.A.Nos.3 & 4 of 2020 are ordered.
21. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
_______________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA,J 26.04.2024 SP 14 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16516/2020 26.04.2024 SP