Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Heard The Learned Counsel For The ... on 6 August, 2024
1
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.346 and 587 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.
2. The first Writ Appeal No.346 of 2024 is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge rendered while disposing of Writ Petition No.6544 of 2024, dated 15.03.2024.
3. The appellants all claim to be Motor Vehicle Inspectors and it is their case that they are the senior most in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Inspector and eligible for being promoted to the next post of Regional Transport Officer. That the respondents have initiated the Writ Petition without arraying them as party-respondents and they being the senior most amongst the existing list of Motor Vehicle Inspectors. The omission on the part of the private respondents i.e. Respondent Nos. 3 to 21 was deliberate and with the intention of securing an order from this Court adverse to their interest. Various grounds have been urged by Sri. M. Vijay Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents.
2
4. The issue of seniority depends more on facts than on any complicated legal issue. The basic Rule relating to seniority is that seniority is relatable to the date on which the employee was borne on the rolls of the Department. In our considered opinion there cannot be any two opinions regarding the same and it is also no more res-integra and is the accepted principle as settled by the Honourable Apex Court. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the appellants, who have sought leave to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge, and the petitioners therein, hail from the same feeder service i.e., the Motor Vehicle Inspectors and by way of Direct Recruitment. The quota reserved in respect of each of the feeder categories is well marked and it is also a settled law that the vacancy in one quota cannot be occupied by candidates from the other feeder category. That despite this being the settled position, we find the parties resorting to multiple rounds of litigation leading to a situation where the Department is rendered to a pendulum in their quest to comply with the directions being issued by the Court. This situation has been brought about because of the failure to observe the elementary and fundamental principles of natural justice. The parties despite being aware of the fact that the order by this Court favoring their contentions, will in all likelihood have adverse impact on the service conditions of their peers but yet the parties have singularly failed in 3 complying with the principles of natural justice by bringing on record such affected parties. It is not that there are hundreds and thousands of employees that it is impossible for the petitioners to identify such of those who would be aggrieved. Yet, there is no conscious attempt to have all the necessary parties onboard.
5. An illustrative case is the present Writ Appeal where the applicants/appellants are crying hoarse before this Court with regard to the non compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is pertinent to note that the Writ Petitions have been moved before this Court with a direction not to constitute a D.P.C., without finalizing the seniority list. We deem it pertinent to observe as above in view of the age of the private respondents before this Court and the small numbers involved in the musical chair called seniority.
6. We have heard Sri Manish Kumar Sinha, Transport Commissioner of the State - Respondent No.2, who is the competent authority to carry out the exercise and on a query, the Transport Commissioner, submits that the total number of candidates in the 'Motor Vehicle Inspector category' is a mere '174' and the number of candidates in the 'Administrative Officer' category is a mere '77'. Thus, despite the small numbers and despite there being no dispute with regard to the date of entry into the service with regard to each of the candidates, we are unable to comprehend the object behind the 4 repeated filing of Writ Petitions and that too without approaching the competent authority for redressal by way of a representation and thereby coercing this Court to enter upon and adjudicate facts.
7. What further bamboozles us is the approach of the Department. The Department has remained a mute spectator and has failed in placing before one Bench the list of cases that are pending before the other Bench/Benches or the cases that have been disposed of on the issue of inter-se seniority. That apart, we see that the private parties before this Court are not green behind the ears and are people who have spent considerable time in the Department. Yet they have made out scope for litigation, which we feel, is by not placing the entire facts before the Court.
8. We have also perused the pleadings in the Writ Petition and the pleadings are to the bare minimum and the pleadings do not even disclose as to the existence of earlier seniority list, much less any service particulars of the petitioners is forthcoming in the pleadings. The attempt of the Department to ensure timely progression is sought to be nullified on the basis of first principles that have been well settled by the Honourable Apex Court. The fact remains that first principles are to be appreciated in the background of facts of each case and which are peculiar to each of the petitioner but the same is not forthcoming.
5
9. Yet the learned Single Judge has been pleased to grant relief on the first principles of a provisional seniority list preceding the promulgation of the final seniority list. There cannot be any quarrel with the same as it is a well established principle but the fact remains that the pleadings do not reveal as to which of the petitioners' right has been violated and nor does it say as to why the Department should be prohibited from discharging its duty of granting promotional benefits to the candidates. In fact on a close scrutiny of the order of the learned Single Judge, we do not find any reasoning which impinges on the legality of the existing or previous seniority list.
10. The Writ Appeal No.587 of 2024 is preferred by the other feeder category i.e. the Administrative Officers. The applicants/appellants in both the Writ Appeals being entitled to occupy a different quota reserved in their favor are now seeking to join in the list which in our opinion if allowed would only deepen the cesspool and lead to a docket explosion and multiple rounds of litigation, thereby, causing a stagnation of promotional avenues to the eligible.
11. Keeping this in view, we have asked the learned Government Pleader to have the competent authority i.e. the respondent No.2 herein to be onboard during the hearing and in compliance with the same, the respondent No.2-Sri. Manish Kumar Sinha, Transport Commissioner has appeared virtually and on interaction, the 6 respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the entire issue of seniority can be resolved within a period of two months and that the seniority of both streams i.e. the 'Motor Vehicle Inspectors' stream and the 'Administrative Officers' stream would be separately crystallized after affording an opportunity of hearing for those who wish to place their objections. And that if permitted, he would draw the provisional list after taking into account such previous seniority list that has attained finality and thereafter, proceed to record reasons and promulgate the final seniority list.
12. Sri.M.Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the private respondents in the first appeal i.e. W.A.No.346 of 2024, would fairly state that the proposal is fair and that the original petitioners are willing to participate in the exercise as proposed by the respondent No.2.
13. Per contra, Sri. J.Sudheer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants/appellants in the second appeal i.e. W.A.No.587 of 2024, would submit that pending the exercise as proposed by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 may be directed to exercise the powers vested in the competent authority under the Rule 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Ministerial Service Rules, 1998 and grant promotions by way of temporary appointments and that the provisions of the Rule 10 enable the competent authority to terminate such appointments 7 after meeting the exigency that might have arisen. On the same being put to the respondent No.2-Transport Commissioner, he would submit that there is no great emergency or any administrative exigency, which requires such actions to be taken, failure of which would result in the working of the Department being scuttled or stunted.
14. Having heard the learned counsels for the appellants and the learned senior counsel for the Writ Petitioners and the respondent No.2-Transport Commissioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant appeals could be disposed of by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge and to the extent of making it a time bound exercise. We deem it equitable because the question of seniority involves an ascertainment of certain facts i.e. 1) service particulars like date of entry into service, 2) Eligibility of the candidates, 3) Any disqualifications by way of any punishments imposed etc are all facts that are readily available with the Department and are facts with which the respondent No.2 is familiar and competent to appreciate. Any exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 by this court would be a long drawn process and consume more than the warranted judicial time.
15. Further, we are of the considered opinion that once the facts stand crystallized, any further litigation would be in the realm of legal issues and can be dealt with and disposed of by this court in a 8 reasonably short period of time. It is indisputable that securing the records, appreciating the records, collating the facts and appreciating the facts would be a humongous exercise for this Court in view of the hundreds and thousands of cases that are pending before the Bench having the roster.
16. On the contrary, the Department would not be at the mercy of its officers and has all the information required to assess the merits and relative merits of the candidates available with them and hence, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter to the respondent No.2 with a direction to notify the provisional list and hear the parties in a time bound manner and issue proceedings finalizing the seniority list of the respective feeder categories.
17. Accordingly, the order of the learned Single Judge in so far as directing the preparation of provisional list is affirmed subject to the respondent No.2 completing the exercise of preparation of provisional list separately for both feeder category. The provisional list shall be published within twenty one (21) days from the date of release of this order. Thereafter, the parties shall be at liberty to file their objections within seven (07) days from the date of orders of the provisional list and thereafter hear the objectors alone and pass orders within a period of three (03) weeks thereafter.
9
18. It is made clear that objections to be raised shall not be voluminous and shall be precise to the nature of the objection and the parties shall be heard in person only on those written objection raised by them.
19. With the above directions, These Writ Appeals stand disposed of.
20. As regard to the appellants, it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to their seniority and as an interim and temporary arrangement, we permit the respondent No.2 to invoke the provisions of Rule 10 to place the senior most candidates in the promotional vacancy presently available.
21. It is made clear that the candidates so placed shall justifiably be the senior most in the list of the eligible candidates and it is made clear that the appellants so granted pursuant to the leave granted under this judgment shall be for a period of two (02) months only, from the date of release of this order and the orders passed granting them for such temporary appointment shall stands lapsed with the passage of a period of two (02) months.
10
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________ G.NARENDAR, J __________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J 06.08.2024 PKR 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA 57 WRIT APPEAL Nos.346 and 587 of 2024 06.08.2024 PKR